
Qass 
Book 



_i^4__ 



i£ 






THE 



FASSAG-ES 



POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, 



ixctxdixct the 



CAUSES OF TILE WAR 



BETWEEN THE SECTIONS. 



BY / 

WILLIAM CIIAUNCEY FOWLER, LL. D. 



NEW YORK: 

CTAPwLES SCEIBNER, 124 GRAND STREET. 

18G2. 



Entered aocording li> Act of Coiigrr", in trio yjsr 1S62, by 

JOHN F. TKOW. 

In the Clerk's Onicc" of the District Court of the United States for the Southern Distric*of 

Now York. 



J(my F. TROW, 

rni'JTrn. nTrnrnTYrrn. atd Ei.ECTnoTm%,* 

tr,, 48 ft M r.rirnc Street, 

New York. • . 



'' iV^-' 



f^ 



PREFACE. 

In tlie year 1850, the week before Mr. "Webster delivered 
his memorable speech on the seventh of March, I had the pleas- 
ure, in Washington, of taking tea with my old friend and class- 
mate, Governor McDowell, then a member of Congress. When 
I rose to take m}^ leave of him, he said he was not willing to 
part without telling me of a burden which was resting on his 
mind. " I am couAnnced, my dear friend," said lie, " that there 
will be a disunion of the States. There is a great change going 
on at the South. Two years ago, when I delivered my speech 
for the Union, all were melted down into a common feeling of 
love for the Avhole country. Men of all parties in the House 
gave me their hands and congratulated me on what they were 
pleased to call my patriotic speech. 

" But now some of the same men are not willing to hear a 
word on the subject of the Union. I am not in the councils of 
these Southern men, though I suppose I might be, if I would 
think and act with them. Every thing is tending to disunion ; 
and I wanted to tell you so before you return to the ISTorth." 

As he said this to me in earnest, tender tones, and with eyes 
filled with tears, I felt that his sad forebodings ought to be 
heeded, and their grounds investigated. 

ISTot very far fi'om this- time. I made the acquaintance of 
Judge BuENET, of Cincinnati, at Union Hall, Saratoga, and was 
greatly interested in his intelligence, wisdom, and patriotism. 
In repeated conversations, he said to me, in substance : " These 



IV PREFACE. 

States cannot long hold together — they will separate." On my 
replying, I can hardly believe that the Southern States will he 
so nnwise, he answered, " Ah, my dear sir, the difficulty is 
with Is"orthcrn men. Great numbers of them do not value the 
Union so much as they do their doctrines on slavery, which, in 
their working, are hostile to the Union. A spirit of disunion 
exists at the North which will continue to increase in extent 
and intensity until it has produced a separation of the States." 

After hearing the testimony of these two patriot statesmen, 
the one speaking of the South and the other of the ISTorth, I 
resolved to investigate the following questions, chiefly for my 
own satisfaction : 

I. Is the traditionary sentiment in favor of the Union dying 
out in the hearts of the people of the States ? 

II. Is the bond of Union, namely, the Constitution, growing 
weaker in the respect and confidence of politicians ? 

III. As a consequence, are the States drifting along, to some 
extent, unconsciously, toward disunion ? 

IV. What are the causes of this alarming condition of the 
country ? 

V. Which section of the Union is resj)onsible for the opera- 
tion of these causes ? 

While investigating these questions, m^' historical collec- 
tions, in their bearing on their solution, grew to such an amount, 
and assumed so much importance in my estimation, that I con- 
cluded to p-esent them to the public in the following pages, as 
furnishing a satisfactory answer to these questions. In adopting 
a chronological arrangemeu/t of my materials, I have endeavored 
to bring distinctly into view the lyrominent questions in dispute 
hetween the two sections in the successive eras, from the first set- 
tlement of the country down to the close of President Buchanan's 
administration. The answer to the former set of questions 
depends on the answer to the latter. For the statement of 



PREFACE. 



these latter questions, and for the arguments on each side, I 
have quoted I^orthern utterances and Southern utterances. 
These, with the " Remarks " inserted at the close of each chap- 
ter, will enable the careful reader, at a small expense of time, 
to obtain a knowledge of the 'princi'pal sectional questions 
M'hich have agitated the country from the first to the present 
time. He cannot fail to see that the same questions, under dif- 
ferent forms, appear, disaj)pear, and reappear, on the tide of 
time, as if they had not already been discussed, and as if one 
generation of politicians must again settle what had been re- 
garded as settled by a former generation. Every political as- 
pirant in each section has been ready to show his prowess in 
attacking some supposed political heresy in the other section, 
even though it had been often confuted ; just as formerly 
" every young churchman militant would try his arms in thun- 
dering on Ilobbes's Steel Cap." 

Disguise it as we will, bitter feuds have existed between the 
Xortli and the South, for a generation at least, reckoning a 
generation at thirty years. In that period men have come for- 
ward into life in each section who think of those born in the 
other section, only to hate them or despise them, or, at least, to 
misunderstand them. "Where does the blame rest? IN'ot solely 
on the Xorth, nor solely on the South. Iliacos intra muros 
peccatur, et extra. The careful reader of this small volume 
will be satisfied that all the political intelligence and virtue of 
the country is not to be found north of Mason and Dixon's 
line, nor south of it ; and that political and sectional pride, and 
intolerance, and hatred, and desire of ofiice, confined to neither 
section, have brought the Union of the States to the verge of ruin. 

"When the rapid current of events in 1861 outran the fears of 
the ridiculed " Union-savers," and hurried on the dreaded catas- 
trophe, the civil war, then begun, was but tlie logical sequence 
of foregoing events. Bitter feelings long cherished, bitter 



VI PKEFACE. 

words often uttered, injuries inflicted, insults oflered, naturally 
germinated and grew into deeds of violence and blood. Dra- 
gons' teeth had been plentifully sown, and they started up armed 
men. And yet multitudes, at the time, were so ignorant of the 
prevalent sectional feelings and purposes, that, in surprise, they 
asked, " What are they fighting for ? " 

The people of the two sections of the country, are, to a large 
extent, ignorant of each other, and hence, in their estimate of 
each other's institutions, they are misled by illusions of tlic 
imagination. 

For the purpose of distributing information among the peo- 
ple, this volume, which might be entitled " Histokical Collec- 
tions," is offered to various classes of readers. 

I. To all, whether North or South, who are ignorant of the 
political history of the United States, and who have not an op- 
portunity of referring to original sources. 

II. To all, M'hethcr North or South, who have strong sec- 
tional prejudices. 

III. To all, whether Korth or South, who wish for the res- 
toration and the preservation of the Union. 

IV. To all, whether Xorth or South, who wish to under- 
stand the causes of the war between the sections. 

V. To all, whether North or South, who value the prosper- 
ity of the country more than they do the success of their party. 

YI. To all, whether North or South, who believe that mere- 
1}' defeating the armies of the Southern States will bring back 
the Union. 

VII. To all, whether North or South, who wish to under- 
stand the constitutional relations between the States and the 
Federal Government. 

VIII. To all, whether North or South, whose hearts, not 
limited by party or section, are large enough to embrace the 
interests of the whole country, and of all the States. 



I'KEFACE. Vii 

The final issue of the sectional controversy lies in the future, 
beyond the ken of mortal vision, wrapped up in the hollow of 
God's mysterious hand. He only, who presides over the des- 
tiny of nations, '' sees the end from the beginning." But 
though thus limited in vision, man can gather from the past the 
lessons of wisdom for his guidance in the future. And may we 
not indulge the pleasing hope that the people of the States, 
gathering wisdom from the mistakes of the past, in the sec- 
tional controversy, may become qualified to enjoy, in the long 
future, the blessings of union under the Federal Constitution ^ 

W. C. R 

New York, 18G2. 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 



Original sectional diversities, .... 
Additional sectional diversities, . . . . 
Bond of sympathy between the colonies, 

Birth of the spirit of Union, 

Sectional feeling yielding to love of country, 
Sectional opinions in the Continental Congress, 
Proposed sectional Convention of the Eastern States, 
Sectional feeling in the Revolutionary army. 
Remarks, . . ...... 



8 
9 
10 
10 
11 
12 
12 



CHAPTER II. 



The Constitutional Conveution, 

Xavigation Acts, . 

The slave trade, 

Proposal of Gouverneur Morris, 

Debate in the Convention on the slave trade, and navigation acts, 
Spirit of the Committee of Eleven, ..... 

Gain and loss to each section by the " bargain," 

Virginia not a pa>ty to the bargain, ..... 

Slaves recognized as property in the Constitution, 

The word " slave " not used in the Constitution, . 

Fugitive slaves, ......... 

Representation and taxation, ...... 

Remarks, 



14 
14 
15 
16 

If; 

IS 
19 
19 
20 
21 
22 
2.S 
24 



CHAPTER III. 

General Washington's Administration, ........ SO 

Duties on tonnage and imports, ......... 30 

Submission of the South to these duties, ....... 31 

Sectional discussion of slavery, ......... 32 

Bank of the United States a sectional measure, ...... 33 

The Excise law a sectional measure, 34 

Assumption of State Debts a sectional measure, 34 



X CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Location of the scut of Government a sectional measure, . . .35 

Bargain in Congress, .......••.■ 36 

Fugitives from justice and from labor, ........ 39 

Jefl'erson's letter to General Washington, 40 

Remarks, -11 

CHAPTER IV. 

John Adams' Administration, 44 

Assertion of State rights, 44 

Doctrine of State rights, 45 

Luther Martin's letter, with the opinions of Johnson, Ellsworth, Hamilton, and 

Madison and others on State rights and military coercion, . . . 40-52 

Remarks, 52 

CHAPTER V. 

Mr. Jefferson's Administration, ' . . 54 

Mr. Jefferson elected by the States voting in Congress assembled, ... 54 

Sectional spirit of the times, 55 

Restrictions upon commerce, • . 58 

Sectional opposition, ........... 59 

The purcliasc of Louisiana, 59 

Sectional opposition, 60 

Remarks, 6*^ 

CHAPTER VI. 

Mr. Madison's Administration, Gl 

Sectional opposition to commercial restrictions, 02 

Sectional opposition to the war of 1812, 63 

The Hartford Convention, 65 

Proposed alterations of the Constitution, • 65 

State Commissioners sent to Washington, 67 

Contemporaneous views of Northern men, John Lowell, Gouvernenr Morris, De- 

witt Clinton, John Quincy Adams, C7-71 

Remarks, ............. 71 

CHAPTER VII. 

Mr. Monroe's Administration, 76 

Restriction of slavery in Missouri proposed and urged by Northern men, . . 76 

Resistance by Southern men, 77-79 

Great sectional excitement, 79 

The compromise bill passed, 80 

The compromise not carried out by Northern members, .... 80-81 

Admission of Missouri, 82 

Remarks, ■ S3 



CONTENTS. Xi 

CHAPTER VIII. 

PAGE 

John Quincy Adams' Administration, ./...,.. 88 

Tariff of 1828, 88 

Jlr. Clay's and Mr. Webster's speeches in 1824, 89, 90 

Protest of Georgia, ........... 92 

Protest of South Carohua, 94 

Remarks, 98 

CHAPTER IX. 

General Jac'Kson s Administration, 100 

Nullification. Hayne. Webster, 101 

Ordinance passed by South Carolina, 109 

Passage of the Revenue Collection bill, ....... 109 

Passage of the Compromise bill, 109 

Remarks, 110 

CHAPTER X. 

Mr. Van Buren s Administration, 115 

Mr. Pinekney's resolutions, 117 

Vermont anti-slavery resolutions, . . . 118 

Mr. Slade's motion, 119 

Withdrawal of Southern members, . . • 1 24 

Mr. Calhoun's resolutions, 126 

Remarks, . , 128 

CHAPTER XI. 

General Harrison's and Mr. Tyler's Administration, lo3 

Annexation of Texas, . . ........ 133 

Proposal of Massachusetts to amend the Constitution, 135 

Remarks, 130 

CHAPTER XII. 

James K. Polk's Administration, 137 

Tariff of 1846, • . . 137 

Oregon Territory, ........... 144 

The Wilmot Proviso, 144 

Remarks, 145 

CHAPTER XIII. 

(leneral Taylor's and Mr. Fillmore's Administration, 148 

Danger of Disunion, 149 

Mr. Clay's Compromise resolutions, .149 

Mr. Calhoun's speech, 150 



Xn CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Mr. Webster's speech 164 

Mr. Clay's speech, 167 

Remarks, 170 

CHAPTER XIV. 

Gen. Pierce's Administration, ... 175 

Appeal of Senators Chase, and Sumner and others on the subject of the repeal of 

the Missouri Compromise, 176 

Clerical protest, 178 

Remarks, 184 

CHAPTER XV. 

Mr. Buchanan's Administration, 187 

Is the Republican party sectional ? IBS 

The Dred Scott decision, 191 

Helper's Book, 193 

The John Brown inva.sion, .......... 197 

Sympathy with Brown, 200 

Personal hberty bills, 201 

Is slavery a creature of local law ? 202 

Northern Abolition and disunion sentiments, ...... 204 

Caleb Cushing in Boston, 1859, • . . 209 

Davis's resolutions on the relations of the States to the General Government, . 210 

Power of Congress over Territories, 211 

Territory of Louisiana, 211 

Who were the parties to the constitutional compact ? . . • . . 213 

Mr. Webster's resolutions in the Senate in 1832, 214 

Ordinance of secession passed by Georgia, 216 

Mr. Madison on secession, . . . . . . . . . . 217 

Declaration of the Convention of South Carolina of the causes of secession, . 224 

The peace Congress, 229 

Mr. Crittenden's resolutions, .......... 229 

Letters of Senators Bingham and Chandler, 230 

Remarks, 232-268 



THE SECTIONAL COXTEOVERSY. 



CHAPTER I. 



OEIGIN^U:. SECTIOXAL DIVEKSITIES. 



Before the American Eevolntioiij tliere were ou the great 
eastern slope of !N"orth America, along the shores of the At- 
lantic Ocean, thirteen separate colonics. These colonies were, 
indeed, connected with England, as their mother conntry ; hnt 
in their relations to each other they were independent and sov- 
ereign nations. 

Moreover, they were, to sonic extent, alien to one another 
in race, in religion, and in political affinities. The inhabitants 
of Isew nampshire, Massachnsetts, and Connecticnt, were de- 
scended from that class of the English who were Pnritan in 
their religion, and Ronndhead in their politics. The inhab- 
itants of Xew York and Xew Jersey were largely descendants 
of the Dntch. The English Quakers, the original settlers, ga^'e 
a certain character to Pennsylvania, just as the Roman Catho- 
lics did to Maryland, just as the j)rclatical cavaliers did to 
Virginia, iust as did the French Huguenots to South Carolina. 

ADDmONAL SECTIONAL DIVERSITIES. 

But other diversities were, in process of time, created by 
climate, education, industrial pursuits, social institutions, and 



8 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEKST. 

government. Tlie people of New Hampshire, ISTew Jersey, 
Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia, were mider what was 
called a Provincial Government, in which the Governors were' 
appointed hy the Crown. The people of Maryland, Pennsyl- 
vania, and Delaware, were under what was called a Projprietary 
Government, in which the Governors were appointed by certain 
individuals called proprietaries. Massachusetts, Kliode Island, 
and Connecticut, were under what was called a Charter Gov- 
ernnnent, in which the* Governor was appointed by the freemen 
of the colony. In Massachusetts, after 1002, the Governors were 
appointed by the Crown. 

Xor were the existing diversities diminished by personal 
intercourse between the colonies, or by the press. In those 
times there were but few travelling, whether for the purposes 
of business or pleasure ; and the press had but a limited circu- 
lation for the few newspapers which it sent forth. So great 
were these diversities, that in Rivington's Gazette, p. 32, they 
are thus noticed : " I^othing has surprised peoj)le more than the 
Virginians and Marylanders joining with so much warmtli 
with the New England Republicans in their opposition to tlieir 
ancient Constitution, which has been the glory of the English in 
every part of the world. As there are certainly no nations un- 
der heaven more ojipositc than these colonies, it would be A'ery 
difficult to account for it on the principle of religion and sound 
j^olicy, had not the Virginians discovered their indifference to 
l)Otli, so highly revered by their illustrious ancestors." 

BOND OF SYilPATUY LLTWEEX TUE COLONIES. 

But it was also true that the colonies, generally, were of com- 
mon blood, and spoke a common language, and were familiar 
with the same traditions, and, in relation to Great Britain, had 
common rights and interests at stake, and common habits of 
reasoning about tlicm. It is not surprising, therefore, that when 
the crown encroached on the rights of Massachusetts, that all 
the colonies should express the liveliest interest in her sufferings. 
Her fate might soon be theirs. It is not surprising that Virginia 
should take the lead in the declaration, that the interests of all 
the colonies were concerned in what was done by the British 



BOND OF SYArPATJIV JUCi'WKKN THE COI-ONIES. U 

Government, in respect to Massachusetts. The Assembly of 
Virginia warned the king of the danger that woiTld ensue, " if 
any person in any part of America should bo seized and carried 
beyond sea for trial," May IG, 1TG9. 

Of the resolves j^assed by Yirginia at this time, Bancroft 
says : " Is it asked who was the adviser of the measure ? None 
can tell. Great things were done, tranquilly and modestly, 
without a thought of the glory that was their due. Had the 
Ancient Dominion been silent, I will not say that Massachu- 
setts might have faltered ; but mutual confidence would have 
been wanting. American freedom was more prepared by cour- 
ageous counsel for successful war." Ills. Am. Rev.., vol. iii,, p. 310. 

In another place he says : " The Boston committee were 
already (1774) in close correspondence with the other New 
England colonies, Avith Kew York, and Peimsylvania. Old 
jealousies were removed, and perfect harmony subsisted between 
all. " Union " was the cry, a union which should reach from 
Florida to the icy plains of Canada ; " p. 541. Under a common 
impulse, in view of common interests at stake, all the colonies, 
except Georgia, sent delegates to the first Continental Con- 
gress, which assembled at Philadelphia on the 5th of Septem- 
ber, 1774. It is not surprising that Patrick Henry should, in 
that Congress, scout the idea of sectional distinctions and of in- 
dividual interests. "All America," said he, " is thrown into 
one mass. Where are your landmarks, your boundaries of colo- 
nies ? They are all thrown down. The distinction between 
Yirginians, Pennsylvaniaus, New Yorkers, and New Englanders 
are no more. I am not a Virgiman, hid an American.'''' Un- 
der a common impulse all the States sent delegates to the second 
Continental Congress, which assembled at Philadelphia on the 
10th of May, 1775, which unanimously appointed George 
Washington commander-in-chief of the continental forces in the 
united colonies. Under a common impulse, all the colonies, on 
the 4th of July, 1776, voted, through their delegates, " that the 
united colonies ought to be Free and Independent States." 
Under the same common impulse, the States, eleven of them, 
adopted the articles of confederation in 1778, one in 1779, and 
the remaining one in 1781, by which the union of the States 
was consummated. 



XO TUE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

SECTIONAL FEELINCr YIELDING TO LOVE OF COUNTRY. 

It is not to be supposed tliat the appointment of George 
"Washington to the supreme command, or that the draft of the 
Declaration of Independence by another Yirginian, or that the 
action of the Continental Congress would entirely avoid the 
manifestation of sectional feelings. Such feelings were, indeed, 
called forth, hut they were cxi)elled from the heart of the people 
of the colonies by the new and stronger affection, namely, love 
of country. The sectional feeling, which led some of the North- 
ern delegates, in the Continental Congress in 1T75, to prefer 
Artemas Ward or some New England man to be commander-in- 
chief, they nobly sacrificed on the altar of patriotism, and gave 
their voices and their votes for a Yirginian, who was selected 
partly on sectional grounds. The sectional feelings naturally 
aroused by the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, 
prepared by Mr. Jefferson, v/as allayed by striking from it the 
objectional clauses. These arc his words : " The clause, too, 
reprobating the enslaving of the inhabitants of Africa, was 
struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who 
had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and 
who, on the contrary, wished to continue it. Our IsTorthern 
brethren, also, I believe, felt a little tender under those cen- 
sures ; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, 
yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to 
others." — Jejjerson^s WorJiS, 

SECTIONAL OPINIONS IN TUE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, 

In the Continental Congress, it was proposed, July 12, 17TC, 
" that the expenses of the Confederation should be borne by 
each colony, in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every 
age and quality, except Indians, not paying taxes in each col- 
ony ; a true account of which, distinguishing the white inhab- 
itants, shall be triennially taken and transmitted to the Assem- 
bly of the United States." 

Mr. Chase, of Maryland, moved " tliat the quota should be 
paid, not by the number of inhabitants, but by the icldU inhab- 
itants." 



PROPOSED SECTIONAL CONVENTTOX. 11 

John Adams, of Massacliusetts, and Mr. Wilson, of Pennsyl- 
vania, spoke in opposition to tliis amendment. The amendment 
was rejected by the votes of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 
Khode Island, Connecticut, 'New York, Xew Jersey, Pennsyl- 
vania, against those of Maryland, Virginia, Xortli Carolina, 
South Carolina, Delaware ; Georgia being divided. 

March 28, 1783, on the same subject, it was voted that slaves 
be taxed 3 to 5. New Hampshire, aye ; Massachusetts, 7io ; 
Rhode Island, no ; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye ; Dela- 
ware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, 
aye; South Carolina, 720 ; Connecticut, ?i6»; New York, ffyc. 

PKOPOSED SECTIONAL CONVENTION. 

April 1, 1783. Mr. Goiimui, of Massachusetts, in the Con- 
gress of the Confederation, observed, as a cogent reason for 
hastening the business, " that the Eastern States, at the invitation 
of the Legislature of Massachusetts, were, with New York, 
about to form a convention for regulating matters of common 
concern, and that, if any plan should be sent out by Congress, 
they would probably cooperate with Congress in giving effi- 
cacy to it." 

Mr. Mekcer, of Virginia, expressed great disquietude at this 
information ; considered it as a dangerous precedent ; and '• that 
it behooved the gentleman to explain fully the object of the Con- 
vention, as it would be necessary for the Southern States to bo 
otherwise very circumspect in agreeing to any plans on the 
supposition that the general Confederacy was to continue.'' 

Mr. Osgood, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Goku^vjsi, explained 
"• that the object of the proposed Convention was to guard against 
an interference of taxes among States whose local situation re- 
quired such precautions." 

Mr. Bland, of A'irginia, said " he always considered these con- 
ventions as improper, and contravening the spirit of the general 
government. He said they had the aj)pearance of Young Con- 

GEESSES." 

Mr. Madison and Mr. Hamilton disapproved of those partial 
conventions, not as absolute violations of the Confederacy, but, 
as ultimately tending to them, and as, in the mean time, excit- 



12 THE SKCnONAL CONTROVEKSY. 

ing i^ernieioiis jealousies ; tlie latter observing, " lie wished, in- 
stead of tlieiu, to see a Geneual Convention take place." 

SECTIONAL FEELING IN THE AEMY OF THE EEVOLETION. 

Nowhere were these sectional jealousies more prevalent than 
in the motley army assembled, from distant quarters, under 
Washington's own command. Eeed, the adjutant-general, 
speaking on this subject, observes: " The Southern troops, com- 
]>rising the regiments south of tlie Delaware, looked with very 
unlcind feelings on those of New England." " It is with great 
concern," says Washington, in one of his general orders, " that 
the general understands that jealousies have arisen .among the 
troops from the different provinces, and reflections are thrown 
out which can only tend to irritate each other, and injure the 
noble cause in which we arc engaged, and which we ought to 
support with one hand and one heart." 

In a letter to Gen. Schuyler, 177G, he says : " I must entreat 
your attention to do away the unhappy and pernicious distinc- 
tions and jealousies between troops of different governments. 
Enjoin this upon the officers, and let them inculcate and press 
home to the soldiery the necessity of order and harmony among 
those who are engaged in one common cause, and mutually 
(iontending for all that freemen hold most dear." 

John Adams, speaking of the violent passions and discordant 
interests at work tln-oughout the country, from Florida to Cana- 
da, observes : " It rcrpiircs more serenity of temper, a deeper 
understanding, and more courage, than fell to the lot of Marl- 
borough, to ride in this whirlwind." Irving's Z?/<3 o/* ^Yashing- 
ton, vol. ii., p. 287. 

REMARKS. 

It is then manifest : 

1. That there were original and acquired diversities of char- 
acter in the early settlers of the States, which were the founda- 
tion of sectional feelings at the commencement of the American 
Ttcvolution. 

2. That these feelings, for the time, were overborne by the 



REMARKS. 13 

common dangers and the common interests in respect to Great 
Britain, Avliicli established a strong bond of sympatliy between 
them. 

3. Tliatj nevertheless, sectional interests were recognized and 
sectional feelings manifested in the Congress of the Confedera- 
tion, and in the army, that were a great embarrassment to the 
Government and to the commander-in-chief. 

4. That, notwithstanding these sectional feelings in the 
minds of those who indnlged them, and in the hearts of the 
people generally, national feelings so far prevailed through the 
several States, that they contended successfully through a seven 
years' war with the mother country, and won the independence 
which they had declared, and took their place by common con- 
sent among the civilized nations of the earth, as a Confederacy, 
styled, The U^'ited States of Ajieeica. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

The common fear of Groat Britain liad caused the States to 
adopt tlie " Articles of Confederation." When that fear was 
removed by the treaty of i>eace, January, 1Y83, those articles 
had lost their power as a bond of union. The common fear of 
imbecility and anarchy, into which they were in danger of 
sinking down, after the excitements of the war had passed off, 
caused them to adopt the Constitution. 

The Convention was composed of gentlemen of high moral 
principle, of undoubted patriotism, and of courteous manners, 
of broad views, some of them accustomed to act together in the 
Continental Congress or in the army, and all of them entertain- 
ing a great respect for Washington, the President. The Con- 
vention assembled in May, 1787. 

Still sectional difficulties arose in that body, which, with 
others inherent in the subjects under discussion, threatened its 
dissolution, before they had accomplished the object for which 
they came together. Tlicse subjects were : 1. ISTavigation. 2. 
Slavery, The North insisted on having protection for their 
property in commerce ; the South insisted on having protection 
for their property in slaves. 

NAVIGATION. 

Tlie Committee of Detail had reported the follo\^^ing pro- 
posal : " No navigation act shall be j^assed (by Congress) with- 
out the assent of two-thirds of the members present in each 
House." This clause the Southern States were anxious to 



THE SLAVIO TEADi:. 15 

retain, lest their commerce should be placed too much in Ihe 
power of the Eastern States ; but which the latter were anxious 
to reject, that thus a bare majority of Congress might pass 
navigation laws to their advantage, even though injurious to 
the Southern States. 



THE SLAVE TEADE. 

By the same committee, the slave trade was left just where 
the old Confederation had left it, without giving Congress the 
power to abolish it, or to lay any duty on imported slaves. 
This proj)osal was acceptable to the Southern States, but not to 
the Northern ; for the deleG:ates from the latter thouirht that 
slaves imported ought to be placed under the general provision 
for taxing imports, and some few of them also thought that 
they ought to favor morals by the abolition of the slave trade. 

Mr. King, of Massachusetts, "thought the subject ought to 
be viewed in aiwlitlcal light only. If two States (South Caro- 
lina and Georgia) will not agree to the Constitution as stated 
on one side, he could affirm with equal belief on the other, that 
great and equal opposition would be experienced from other 
States." He remarked that " the exemption of slaves from 
duty, while every other import was subject to it, is an inequal- 
ity that could not fail to strike the commercial sagacity of the 
:N'orthern and Middle States." 

Gen. CoTEswoETH PixcKNEY, of Soutli Carolina, in his re- 
ply, said " that he thought himself bound to declare candidly, 
that he did not think that South Carolina would stoj) the im- 
portation of slaves in any short time, but only stop it occasion- 
ally, as she now docs. lie moved to commit the clause, that 
slaves might be made liable to an equal duty with other im- 
ports, which he thought right, and which would remove one 
difficulty which had been stated." 

Tuesday, August 21 and 22, 1TS7. — Mr. Ellswoeth, of Con- 
necticut, was for leaving the clause (which did not prohibit the 
importation of slaves) as it now stands. " Let every State import 
what it pleases. The wisdom or morality of slavery are con- 
sidercdions thcd helong to the States themselves. What enriches 
a part enriches the whole ; and the Stat-cs are the best judges 



16 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVERSY. 

of their particular interests. Tlic old Confederation had not 
meddled witli this point, and ho did not sec any greater neces- 
sity for hringinii; it witliin the policy of the new one." 

!Mr. SnKinrAN, of Connccticnt, "■ was for leaving the clanse as 
it now stands. lie disapproved of the slave trade ; yet, as the 
States were nioio ^^ossesseel of the rigJtt to import deivcs, and as 
tlie public good did not require it to be taken from them, and 
as it was expedient to have as few objections as possible to the 
proposed scheme of government, ho thought it best to leave the 
matter as we find it ; that is, not prohibit the importation of 
slaves." 

Mr. GouvEENEUR JSIoEKis, of Pennsylvania, wished to have 
the whole subject to be committed, including the clause relating 
to navigation acts. " These things, namely, the slave trade, to 
which some of the North was opposed, and the navigation act 
without a restriction, to which the South was opposed, may 
form a hetrgahi between the Northern and the Southern States." 

COilMITTEE or ONE EKOiM EACH STATE. 

The Committee of Eleven, to whom was referred the subject 
of the " bargain," reported, August 24, 178T, " in favor of not 
allowing the Legislature to prohibit the importation of slaves 
before 1800, but giving them power to impose a duty at a rate 
not exceeding the average of other imjyorts.'"' 

DEBATE IX THE CONVENTION. 

General Pinckney, August 25, moved to strike out the year 
1800, and insert 1808. 

Mr. GoRiiAM, of Massachusetts, seconded the motion. 

It was then passed in the affirmative ; Xcw Hampshire, 
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, and 
South Carolina, voting in the affirmative (6) ; New Jersey, 
Pennsyh'ania, Delaware, and Virginia, in the negative (4). 

It was finally agreed, nem. con., to make the clause read, " but 
a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not ex- 
ceeding ten dollars for each person." Ten dollars was considered 
by some of the members a '-'-fair average of other im])orts^'' 



DEBATE IN" THE CONVENTION. 17 

comparing the price of a Blavc, at that time, with the price of 
" other articles" of importation, or five per cent, ad valorem, 
the money value of a slave. This sum, as a specific duty, there- 
fore, was inserted instead of " a fair average of other imports,'' 
the phrase used in the report of the committee. Thus the price 
of a slave was reckoned at two hundred dollars by the Con- 
vention. 

Mr. CuAKLES PiNCKNEY, of South Carolina, August 29, 
moved in Convention to postpone the report of the Committee 
of Eleven in favor of the following proposal : " Tliat no act of 
tlie Legislature for the purpose of regulating the commerce of 
the United States with foreign powers, among the United 
States, (the several States,) shall be passed without the assent 
of two-thirds of the members of each House." Mr. Martin 
seconded the motion. Mr. Pinckney remarked, that there were 
five ditferent commercial interests : 1. The fisheries and West 
India trade, which belonged to the ISTew England States. 2. 
The interests of Is ew York lay in free trade. 3. Wheat and 
flour are the staples of the two Middle States, New Jersey and 
Pennsylvania. 4. Tobacco, tlic staple of Virginia and Mary- 
hmd, and a part of ISTorth Carolina. 5. Pice and indigo, the 
staples of South Carolina and Georgia. These difiercnt inter- 
ests would be the source of oppressive regulations, if no cheek 
to a bare majority should be provided. States pursue their 
interests with less scruple than individuals. The power of regu- 
lating commerce was a jjure concession on the part of the 
Southern States. They did not need the ju-otcction of the 
maritime States for the j)resent." 

General C. C. Pinckney, of South Carolina, said " that it was 
the true interest of the Southern States to pass no regulation of 
commerce ; but, considering the loss brouglit on the comincrcc 
of tlie Eastern States by the Pevolution, their liberal coiiducf 
towards the views of South Carolina, (permission to import 
slaves,) and the interests the weak Southern States had in being 
united to the strong Eastern States, ho thought it proper that 
no fetters should be imposed on the power of making commer- 
cial regulations, and that his constituents, though j'^i'cjudiced 
against the Eastern States, would be reconciled by this liberality, 
(as to the slave trade.) lie had himself, he said, prejudices. 



18 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

against tlic Eastern States before he came here, but would ac- 
knowledge that he had found thcui a:^ liberal and candid as any 
men whatever." 

Mr. Clymer, of Pennsylvania : '• The diversity of commercial 
interests of necessity creates difficulties which ought not to be 
increased by imnecessary regulations. The Korthern and Mid- 
dle States will 1)6 ruined^ if not allowed to defend themselves 
against foreign regulations." 

Mr. SnEKM.VN, of Connecticut, and Mr. Morris, of Pennsyl- 
vania, in behalf of the Eastern States, spoke against Mr. 
Charles Pinckney's motion. 

Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, " differed from those who 
considered the rejection of the motion as no concession on the 
part of the Southern States. lie considered the interests of 
these and the Eastern States as different as the interests of Rus- 
sia and Turkey. Being, notwithstanding, desirous of concilia- 
ting the affections of the Eastern States, he should vote against 
re(|uiring two-thirds instead of a majority." 

Colonel George Mason, of Virginia : "If the Government is 
lo be lasting, it must be founded in the confidence and affection 
i)i the people, and must be so construed as to obtain these. 
The majority will be governed by their interests. The Southern 
States are in the minority in both Houses. Is it to be expected 
that they will deliver themselves, bound hand and foot, to the 
Eastern States, and enable these to exclaim, in the words of 
Cromwell on a certain occasion, ' Tlic Lord hath delivered them 
into our hands ' ? " 

Mr. Pinckney's motion having failed to pass, the report of 
the committee, striking out the clause requiring a two-thirds 
vote to pass a navigation act, was then agreed to nem. con. 

THE SPIRIT OF the COMMITTEE OF ELEVEN. 

Tlic spirit of the committee that reported the terms of the 
foregoing " bargain," may be understood from the following- 
statement of Luther Martin, one of their number : " They met 
and took under their consideration the subjects committed to 
them. I found the Eastern States, notwithstanding their aver- 
sion to slavery, were very willing to indulge the Southern States 



yniGmiA not a paety to the bargain. 19 

with at least a temporary liberty to prosecute tlie slave trade, 
provided the Southern States would, in their turn, gratil'y them 
by laying no restriction on navigation acts ; and, after a very 
little time, the committee, by a large majority, agreed on a 
report." 

GAIN iiXD LOSS to EACH SECTION BY THE BAIiGAIN. 

In this hargaiuj the jSTorthern States gained : first, the right 
to pass navigation acts by a bare majority ; to tax the'tonnage 
of foreign nations for their own advantage as carriers ; to lay a 
duty on foreign imports for their own advantage as manufac- 
turers ; secondly, to put an end to the slave trade in twenty 
years, and thereby to prevent, in some degree, the increase of 
slave representation, for their own political advantage. What 
did they lose ? l^othing, excej)t their share of the profits in im- 
porting slaves, after enjoying it for that period. 

"What did the Southern States gain by this bargain ? They 
gained only the additional recognition of property m slaves by 
the Constitution ; while they lost much of what the Xorthern 
States gained. They did not gain the right to import slaves for 
twenty years which they enjoyed before ; while they lost the 
right to import them afterwards. Tlicy found themselves 
" bound hand and foot " by the tariff laws of 182S, and other 
tariffs. 

VIEGINIA NOT A BAETY TO THE EAEGAIN. 

One reason why Virginia did not unite with the Southern 
and Eastern States in making that bargain probably was, that she 
neither derived the profits received by the one class, from trans- 
porting slaves to the country, nor the profits received from pur- 
chasing and working them after their importation, enjoyed by 
the other class. She already had slaves enough of her own, so 
that she had no occasion to purchase, and she had comparatively 
few ships for transporting them to others. She could raise slaves 
cheaper than she could import them, and if she had any slaves 
for sale, the price of them would be lessened by the importation 
of negroes. 

Besides this, Yirginia had a long standing quarrel with the 



20 THE SECTIOXAL COXTEOVEKSY. 

* 

Britisk king on account of his vetoing a bill for the suppression 
of the slave trade, drawn up by the youthful Jefferson, and in- 
troduced by him into the State Legislature, and then passed. 
The indignation caused by that regal act continued to burn 
in the heart of the mover, and in many a generous bosom 
throughout Virginia for a long time afterwards, and may have 
contributed to prevent her from voting to permit the continuance 
of the slave trade until 1S08. 

The course of Virginia in the Convention was somewhat 
equivocal, acting sometimes with the slave States, and sometimes 
with the non-slaveholding States. As she had taken the lead in 
forming a Constitution, she must have been anxious to carry it 
out to a successful issue. She felt the dignity of her position as 
the Ancient Dominion, as the inother of statesmen, and as hav- 
ino; her favorite son acting as President of the Convention. Mr. 
Madison, especially, was anxious to prevent a failure, and was 
disjjosed to conciliate both sections. lie and others, probably, 
desired to believe that the abolition of slavery would take place 
in all the States, and he was willing to encourage the hope of it 
in others. But after the completion of the " bargain " by which 
the slave trade was to be continued twenty years, he must have 
given up that belief. Lideed, he declared that, by that contiim- 
ance, all the evils of allowing the permanent continuance of the 
slave trade would be accomplished. The Pinckneys and others, 
who were better circumstanced to judge correctly, never en- 
couraged that belief, but the contrary. They made arrange- 
ments in the Constitution for the permanence of slavery in the 
United States, and for its increase : just what has happened. 

SLAVES EECOGNIZED AS PKOPEETY BY THE CONSTITCTIOX. 

But while the " bargain " was in the course of negotiation, 
it was particularly objected to by Roger Siiermax, on the ground 
that, by laying a duty on slaves as on other imports, it recognizes 
them as '■'• property. ^^ 

There were men in the Convention who had no objections to 
slaves being property, and to owning them as proi^crty, who 
thought that it was not judicious to name them as such, or to 
recognize them as such in the Constitution. That instrument 



THE AVOKD SLAVE NOT USED IN THE COKSTITUTIOX. 21 

must go before the people of the several States, and "U'as likelv 
to encounter great opposition. They thought, therefore, that it 
was desirable that as few features as possible should belong to 
it, with which even the inost scrupulous and fastidious could 
find fault. 

But it became necessary to recognize them as propertv in 
the Constitution ; just as they were often spoken of as property 
in the debates, and classed as property by ISTorthern and South- 
ern delegates. Thus, Mr. '^VILSo^", of Pennsylvania, in the de- 
bate on this very subject, remarked : " As the section now 
stands, all articles (imported) are to be taxed, slaves only ex- 
empt ; " he thought it " unreasonable that slaves alone should 
be exempt, when all other articles are taxed or chtticd. They 
were, therefore, classed in the same category with other articles 
of property. 

THE WORD SLAVE NOT TSED IN THE CONSTITUTION. 

In regard to using the word " persons " in this section, and 
elsewhere, when slaves were meant and spoken of, Lutiiek Mak- 
TON has the following remark in his letter to the Legislature of 
Maryland : " The design of this clause is to prevent the general 
Government from prohibiting the importation of slaves ; but the 
same general reason which caused them to strike out the word 
" national," and not admit the word " stamp," influenced them 
to guard against the introduction of the word slaves. Tliey anx- 
iously sought to avoid any expression which might be odious in 
the ears of Americans ; although they were willing to admit into 
their system the things which the expression signified." It fully 
recognized slaves to be property, though it does not contain the 
word. Mr. Sherman liked " a description " better than the 
term, which was not pleasing to some people. Mr. Madison 
was unwilling to use the term slaves in the Constitution, or even 
to suggest the idea that they were property ; though he spoke 
of them as property in debate and elsewhere, and owned them 
as property. He would have the idea, but would not suggest 
the idea. The word slaves, would be disagreeable to men like 
the Quakers ; the word " national," would be oflensive to the 
staunch supporters of State rights ; and the word " stamp," would 



i^ 



22 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOTERST. 

be disagreeable, because it called up the remembrance of the 
" stamp act." The phraseology used in describing the slave 
trade "was employed for the same purpose. Mr. Madison, in his 
letter to Robert Walsh, Nov. 1819, declares, in respect to the 
phrase the " migration and importation of such persons," that it 
means the importation of slaves. Tlie word " migration " was 
added as an expletive, that would weaken the impression pro- 
duced by the word importation when used alone. Tlie one word 
^vould modify or explain the other. 

Gou\"EKNEUE Morris, of Pennsylvania, one of the leading 
JSTorthern men in the Convention, was anxious that the protec- 
tion of slavery should not be iw^^a prominent in the Constitution. 
His constituents were some of them Quakers, some of them 
members of abolition societies, who might oppose the adoption 
of the Constitution, if they saw, distinctly, the whole amount of 
protection afforded to slave property, as they would, if slaves 
were distinctly named. And yet he declared that, as a matter 
of fact, domestic slavery was the rcxo'ai prominent feature in the 
aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution^ His 
perceptive mind saw clearly the exact meaning of the descrip- 
tive terms employed instead of the terms themselves. " A per- 
son held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof," 
was a description conveying as clear a meaning to his mmd, as 
if the word slave had been used instead of the " description." 
A description of the meaning of a word in a dictionary is a de- 
finition of the word, and shows its meaning. These statesmen 
did the same that theologians sometimes do. Instead of using 
odious words, they used equivalent terms. 

FUGITIVE SLAVES. 

General C. C. Pestckney, of South Carolina, at an early stage 
of the proceedings, declared that, unless provision should be 
made to secure the Southern States in the possession of their 
property in slaves, by i^reventing their cmancii)ation by escap- 
ing into other States, the Constitution would not be accepted by 
the State which he represented. After the committee of detail 
had made their report, without making this provision, he re- 
newed his demand for a provision " in favor of property in 



EEPKESENTATION AND TAXATION. 23 

slaves ; " and in the course of tlie debate lie and Mr. C. Pinck- 
NEY moved to require fugitive slaves to be delivered up like 
criminals." 

Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, said : " This would require 
the executive of a State to do it at public expense." 

Mr. SnEKM^i^, of Connecticut : " I see no more propriety in 
the public seizing and surrendering a slave, or servant, than a 
horse." It appears that both of these gentlemen voted for tliis 
provision, notwithstanding these objections. 

Mr. BuTLEK, of South Carolina, moved to insert, after article 
15, " if any person, bound to service or labor in any of the 
United States, shall escape into another State, he or she shall 
not be discharged from such service or labor in consequence of 
any regulation subsisting in the State to which they may escape, 
but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their ser- 
vice or labor." Tliis was agreed to in Convention ncm. con. 

In the first revision of this clause, there were some changes 
in style not affecting the meaning of the terms. Thus, instead 
of "justly " the word " due " was substituted ; and instead of 
" any of the United States," " any State " was substituted. 

Thus the Convention, without a dissenting voice, secured to 
slaveholders their right of property in slaves, according to the 
demand of Gen. Pinckney, in every part of the country, and 
in every State where the slave could be found. Tlie States were 
expected to aid in the rendition of slaves. 

EEPKESENTATION AND TAXATION, 

In respect to the subject of taxation, it seemed to bo the 
wish of delegates from the Southern States that slaves should be 
reckoned as property, and not as persons ; while, with respect to 
representation, it was their wish, at least a portion of them, that 
the slaves should be reckoned as persons, and the full number 
of slaves should be counted as so many white men. 

On the other hand, the delegates from the Northern States 
seemed disposed to consider the slaves as persons with respect 
to the subject of taxation, but to consider them as property in 
respect to the subject of representation. 

It having just been established in the Convention, by the 



24 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

votes of tlic States, that there should be a common measure 
for representation and taxation, it was afterwards decided, that, 
as slaves were viewed both as property and as persons, tliey 
should be taken into both representation and taxation in the pro- 
portion of three to five, that is, that five slaves should couni as 
much as three whites, Tims slaves are recognized as " persons " in 
the words of the Constitution, but as persons under the disability 
of being regarded as property by the laws of the State in which 
they reside. Had they been reckoned in their whole number, it 
would have been because they were regarded, in this matter, 
only as persons ; had they been excluded from the reckoning, it 
would be because they were, in this matter, reckoned only as prop- 
erty, just as they were originally by the Continental Congress. 

The constitutional Convention was dissolved September 14, 
1787. 

REMARKS. 

1. When the Constitution came from the Convention before 
the several States for adoption, so strong was the opposition to 
it in some of them, that it became evident that it could not be 
ratified by all of them, unless it should be amended either be- 
fore or after its adoption. It was finally concluded to adopt it 
on assurances that it would be amended afterwards. One of 
the proposed amendments respected State rights, which have 
since been the subject of sectional discussion. 

One of the articles of the old Confederation was this : " Each 
State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and 
every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Con- 
federation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress 
assembled." This was omitted in the new Constitution, not 
from any objection to it, so far as is known to the present 
writer. Delegated powers are, of course, limited to the 
subjects delegated. 

Accordingly, after its adoption, the following article, among 
others, was added to it, as an equivalent to the above article 
of the old Confederation : '' The powers not delegated to the 
United States, are reserved to all the States respectively, or the 
people," (that is, to the people of the States respectively.) 

At the time the Constitution was adopted, the citizens of 



REMAKES. 25 

the different States were familiar witli tlic doctrine of tlie Dec- 
laration of Independence, that Governments derive their just 
" powers from the consent of the governed," and that " it is the 
right of the people to alter and abolish their Government, and 
to form a new one, laying its foundation on such principles, 
and organizing its powers in such a form, as to them shall seem 
most likely to effect their safety and happiness." 

The " right of the people" hero spoken of generally, is ap- 
plied, in that instrument, to the right of the people of the colo- 
nies respectively, who were about to " alter their former sys- 
tems of government." The very clause containing the Declara- 
tion recognizes the same fact : '• We, therefore, tlie representa- 
tives of the Tnited States of America, in Congress assembled, 
appealing to the Supreme Judge of the Avorld for the rectitude 
of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the 
good people of these colonies, solemnly declare that these 
United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and inde- 
pendent States." Each colony thus became an independent 
State. Thus each colony, acting for itself, but in concert with 
others, " altered its former system of government." 

And in the very act of changing the Government from that 
of the old Confederation, which was established by " articles 
of perpetual union," the several States recognized the right of 
" the people of the several States" to change the form of their 
government ; inasmuch as by their delegates, and then by their 
people, they changed the government, making it binding if 
nine States consent to the union, leaving out the remaining 
four. If the people of the several nine States had the right to 
change the government, notwithstanding they had adopted the 
" articles of perpetual union," then the four residuary States, 
namely, Virginia, Kew York, Ehode Island, and I^ortli Caro- 
lina, would be left in an awkward position, and might have 
some reason to complain ; but they could not deny the right. 
And it is not known to the present writer that they did deny 
the right. Tlie two former soon acceded to the Union, but 
Rhode Island delayed until May, 1790, nearly three years, and 
North Carolina until jS^ovember, more than three years. It 
should be added that these two States were not brought into 
the Union by coercion of any kind, but by conciliation. 



26 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

2. After encountering a powerful opposition in the Conven- 
tion in Virginia, the Constitution was ratitied with the implied 
recognition of the right of the people of that State to resume 
the powers granted under it. " We, the delegates of the people 
of Virginia, do, in the name and behalf of the people of Vir- 
ginia, declare and make known, that powers granted under the 
Constitution, being derived from the people of the United 
States, 7aau he resumed hj them whensoever the same shall be 
perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power 
not granted thereby remains with them and at their will," &c. 

In like manner the Convention of the State of New York 
assert the right of the people of New York to resume the 
2^owers granted under tlio Constitution. They " declare and 
make known, that the powers of government may be resumed 
by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their 
happiness ; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is 
not by said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of 
the United States, or the Departments of the Government 
thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their 
respective State Governments to whom they have granted the 
same," &c. The State of New York, or the people of the State, 
as a party to the compact, must judge when it shall be neces- 
sary to resume the powers granted. Without this recognition 
of the right of a State to resume the powers granted, there is no 
reason to believe that the Constitution would have been ratified 
by New York ; as there was a very powerful opposition to the 
measure. This recognition seems to have been substituted for 
another proposition, namely, to expressly reserve the right to 
recede after five or six years. Tlie Constitution, Avith this and 
other explanations, was ratified by a majority of only three. 

Ehode Island, also, expressly reserved the right to resume 
the powers granted. Thus three States, at least, not satisfied 
with the right which all the colonies were acknowledged to 
liave, to alter their form of government, made a distinct dec- 
laration of that right, when they ratified the Constitution. In 
those times, when the word "people" was used in reference to 
the civil Government, it svas understood to mean the people 
who acted by a Legislature, and Judges, and Governors of their 
own — i\\Q 2)C0]?le of a State. In this sense it is used in the arti- 



EEMAEKS. 27 

cles of Confederation, and in tlic Constitution, though in the 
latter it is also used for smaller bodies ; but in no instance is it. 
used for all the citizens of the United States taken collectively. 
Who were the people that ordained and established the Consti- 
tution of the United States ? Evidently, the people of the sev- 
eral States, each State acting separately and for itself. The 
people of Massachusetts could not act for Virginia, but only for 
Massachusetts. The people of Virginia, when they claimed the 
right to resume the powers delegated, claimed that right for 
each of the States. 

3. In the Convention which assembled in Philadelphia, 
May, 178T, the greatest difficulty arose from diversity of views 
in respect to State rights, though it did not, as afterwards, as- 
sume a sectional form. This will be noticed hereafter. 

4. In respect to the " bargain" concerning navigation and 
the slave trade, it appears from the speech of General Pinckney, 
that the delegates of the Southern States were influenced bv 
generous and patriotic considerations. 

5. The J^orthern States declared in the Convention that they 
had but one motive to form a Constitution, and that was " com- 
merce." By the bargain they gained wliai they vjanted. In ac- 
cordance with this, Fisher A:mes, in the Massachusetts Convention, 
assembled to ratify the Constitution, said : " But we shall put 
every thing to hazard by rejecting the Constitution. "We hav(> 
great advantages with respect of navigation ; and it is the gen- 
eral interest of the States that we should have them. But if 
we reject it, what security have we that we shall obtain them a 
second time against the local interests and prejudices of the 
other States ? " 

6. The Northern States have since gained more than all the 
advantages which they expected by the encouragement jDrovided 
for their commerce and manufactures ; especially since high 
tariffs have been established by Congress. 

Y. The Southern States lost whatever of advantages there 
was in the slave trade, after, twenty years ; but they gained the 
acknowledgment that slaves under the Constitution are prop- 
erty, being taxable or dutiable like other articles of property ; 
rowLrSt^trs; :;! t^Cin-case of the ..^....W-^ 

3 



28 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEEST. 

slaves, they shall he protected in their rights of proj^crty by 
aid, when necessary, from the non-slaveholding States. 

8. In submitting to the rule of reckoning live slaves as 
equivalent to three whites in taxation and representation, the 
Southern States did not gain what it was expected they would 
gain in taxation, inasmuch as, with very few exceptions. Fed- 
eral taxes have not been assessed in the States, as the expenses 
of the Federal Government have been supported chiefly by 
revenue from imports ; while they have lost what they expected 
to lose in resjDcct to representation, namely, two-fifths of the 
slaves, which are not reckoned as the basis of representation. 

9. It should be added that in 1807, when the vote was taken 
in Congi'ess to abolish the slave trade, the Southern States 
united with the Northern in passing that vote, which was nearly 
unanimous, showing that the power over the trade, which they 
gave up in the Constitution, they did not attempt to retain by 
Congressional action. 

AVhether the I^orthern States have been careful not to abuse 
the power acquired by the " bargain," respecting navigation laws 
and tariff laws, is a question not yet settled between the JSTorthern 
and the Southern States. Whether Northern States have faith- 
fully performed their obligations to " deliver up" fugitive slaves 
to theii* owners, is likewise a question between the two parties. 
An unprejudiced mind, acquainted with Congressional action 
for the last forty years, and with State legislation in passing 
personal liberty bills for the last ten years, can hardly fail to 
decide that the Northern States have al)used their power in the 
one case, and have not been faithful in the other. 

10. Tlie Constitution was intended to secure to the Southern 
States the jyeaccciljla 2>osscssion of their slaves ^ and had it not 
been supposed that it did so, it would never have been adopted 
by them. It made slavery a part of our national institutions, 
so far as we have any national institutions ; and the Federal 
laws, and the decisions of the Federal judiciary, and the ac- 
tion of the Federal executive in treaties with Great Britain 
and otherwise, have recognized it as a national institution. 
That they have not enjoyed the peaceable possession of their 

slaves, events fot^.^tJianV/'^Wifeltv f""" /' ' ""^.T'^ ^"""^^'^^t- 
> . --t-..y ^tuif caitors have, for political Dui-poses, 



REMAT^KS. 29 

extensively insinuated into Xortliern minds liatJ-ed of blaverv 
and slaveholders. 

11. Covert or open attacks liave been made upon slavery, 
from political considerations. Some lifteeu or twenty years 
ago, when JSTorthern petitions, signed by men, women, and 
cliildi'en, and negroes, were flooding the floor of the lower 
House, as a leading ISTorthern member of Congress, who after- 
wards was a member of a Presidential Cabinet, was coming out 
from a heated debate, he was asked by the present writer, an old 
college friend, " Will you inform me what is the real reason 
why N"orthern members encourage these petitions ? " After 
considering for a moment, he said to me, " Tlie real reason is, 
that the South will not let us have a tarifi', and we touch 
them where they will foel it." 

12. Tlie Constitution gives no authority to Congress to legis- 
late in favor of morals and religion ; these subjects are reserved 
for the action of the States. The Constitution treats slavery as 
a political matter only, and gives no authority to Congress to 
treat it in any other w^ay. 



CHAPTER III. 

GENERAL -VVASniNGTON's ADMINISTRATION. 

The Constitution jnst adopted embodied the principles of 
our Government ; tlic laws to be passed under it would furnish 
the rules for its administration. It was fortunate for the coun- 
try that the friends of the Federal Constitution had a jjaramount 
influence in the practical application of its ^^I'^^^ciples in the 
legislative, judicial, and executive departments. Especially was 
it fortunate that Washington, the President of the Convention, 
W'as President of the United States, and IlAanLTON, a leading 
member, v^-as Secretary of the Treasury, and Randolpjei, who, in 
the Convention, brought forward the phin that was adopted, was 
Attorney-General, and Jefferson, the author of the Declaration 
of Independence, was Secretary of State. 

But as in the Convention, so in the first Congress and after- 
wards, sectional disputes arose, which, though conducted for the 
most part with decorum, shadowed dimly forth those future heated 
discussions in that Department, that have, from time to time, 
shaken like an earthquake the country to its centre. The in- 
terests of the Northern States were different from those of the 
Southern States, and when Congress was called to legislate on 
subjects connected wnth those interests, it is not strange tliat the 
members from tlie South, at their stand-point, should take a 
view of those subjects differing from that taken l)y iN'orthern 
members. 

DUTIES ON TONNAGE AND IMPORTS. 

Tlie duties on foreign tonnage and imports, pressed more 
heavily on the South than on the North, inasnmch as the former 



DUTIES ON TONNAGE AND IMPORTS. 31 

liad fewer ships and fewer manufactures to be benefited. Mr. 
Smith, of South Carolina, said : " Gentlemen have endeavored 
to persuade us that a high tonnage duty will be beneficial to the 
Union ; but I would as soon be persuaded to throw myself out 
of a two-story window, as to believe that a high toimage will be 
favorable to South Carolina." And in respect to duties on im- 
ports, Mr. Madison remarked, " If there is a disposition repre- 
sented to complain of the oppression of government, have not 
the citizens of the Southern States more just ground of com- 
plaint than others ? " " The system can only be acceptable to 
them, because it is, essentially, necessary to be adopted for the 
public good." 

And yet, on another occasion Mr. Madison said, in reference 
to the same subject, '* I believe every gentleman who hears the 
observations from the different quarters of this House, discovers 
great reason for every friend of the United States to congratulate 
himself upon the evident disposition which has been displayed 
to conduct business with harmony and concert." And Mr. 
Ames said, " Tlie gentlemen from the southward who suppose 
their States most likely to be affected by a discrimination in the 
tonnage duty, have concluded their arguments with a candor 
which does honor to their patriotism." 

It is very evident that on this subject there was a spirit of 
conciliation on the part of leading men, and especially on the 
part of Southern gentlemen, who consented to sacrifice the in- 
terests of their States for the public good. The Xorthern States 
had wished for the establishment of the Constitution, chiefly, for 
the protection of their commercial interests. Tliis legislation of 
the first Congress under the Constitution secured to them this 
protection. The South patiently, or rather cheerfully, acquiesced 
in bearing the burdens imposed by this legislation. " If," 
said Mr. Ames, " I may judge of the feelings of the people by 
those of their representatives on this floor, I may venture to say 
that there never was less reason to apprehend envy and discord 
than at this time. I believe the fact is so, because I feel it." 
lie was conscious of a patriotic regard for the whole country. 
'• I look," said he, '• Avith an equal eye upon the succeso of every 
State through the whole extent of United America. I wish 
their interests to be equally consulted." Thus were the com- 



THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEKSY. 



inercial sacrifices of tlie South appreciated, and tlicir patriotism, 
■\vliieli made them submit to the sacrifices, reciprocated by a 
representative man of the North. In this contest the South 
yielded to the North fur the general good of the country. 



SECTIOXAL DISCUSSION OF SLAYEKY. 

In tlie Constitutional CouYention, tlic Southern States had 
obtained provisions "vvhicli secured to them their ]:>roperty in 
slaves, and the right to imj)ort slaves for twenty years. But in 
Congress, Feb. 11, 1790, " The Address of the Quaker Meeting," 
from certain Northern States, was presented against the contin- 
uance of the African slave trade, which was permitted by the 
Constitution, until 1808. And Feb. 11, 1790, '' The Memorial 
of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society " was presented, praying 
for the abolition of slavery in the United States, which, by the 
Constitution, was left under the States. 

Tlicsc two memorials were received in one spirit by Southern 
members, and in another and different S2:)irit by Northern mem- 
bers. The former saw clearly that the petitioners were aiming 
a blow at their pecuniary and their social interests, by urging 
Congress to pass unconstitutional laws on the subject of slavery, 
and by holding slaveholders up to the moral abhoiTcncc of the 
world ; as if Congress had the power to legislate for the promo- 
tion of morals and religion. 

The Northern members, some of them, seemed to give a warm 
welcome to the petitions, as if they were glad to ventilate their 
abhorrence of slave-trading and slaveholding. 

In this contest the Southern States retained, indeed, their 
constitutional rights, but they had to struggle earnestly for them. 
Tlic temper of Northern members shown on this occasion was 
manifested at times afterwards. Tims, Jan. 1795, Mr. Dextek, 
of Massachusetts, moved, as an amendment to a motion for nat- 
uralizing foreigners, " that each man naturalized should re- 
nounce the possession of slaves," and, as an amendment to this 
amendment, Mr. Tiiatciiek, of Massachusetts, moved, '■ and he 
never would possess slaves." 

Mr. Madison, in reply to Messrs. Dextek and Tiiatchek, 



BANK OF TllK UNITED STATES. 33 

said " that the mention of such a thing would have a very bad 
effect on that species of property." 

Mr. W. Smith, of South Carolina, a distinguished member, 
in the course of the discussion on slavery, said " that tlu' 
Southern States never would have entered into the Confedera- 
tion unless their property (in slaves) had been guarantied to 
them." 

Mr. BouDiNOT, of New Jersey, said : " There is a wide dif- 
ference between justifying the ungenerous traffic, and supporting 
a claim to property vested at the time of the formation of the 
Constitution, and guarantied thereby." 

The effect of the motions of Messrs. Dexter and Thatchee, 
if they had prevailed, would have been to lessen emigration to 
the slave States, and thus to lessen their political power. 

BANK OF the UNITED STATES. 

The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Hamilton, had advocated 
the establishment of a ISTational Bank, on the ground that it 
would promote the prosperous administration of the finances, 
and help to support the public credit. When a bill in conformity 
to his plan was, in 1701, sent down from the Senate, it was 
suffered to pass to its third reading without opposition. On the 
final question a powerful opposition was made to its passage by 
Mr. Madison and others. 

It was asserted by them that the powers of the Government 
of the United States which it might legitimately exercise, were 
enumerated in the Constitution. In this enumeration, the 
power to charter a bank was not to be found. They, moreover; 
insisted that it could not be implied from the powers that were 
given to the Government, and that, by any fair construction, no 
clause in the Constitution could be understood to imply so im- 
portant a power as that of creating a corporation. 

On the other side, in favor of the establishment of a bank, it 
was asserted, that incidental as well as express powers must, 
necessarily, belong to every government, and that when a power 
is delegated to effect particular objects, all the known and usual 
means of effecting them must pass also, and after taking a com- 
prehensive view of the powers given to the General Government, 



34 THE SECTIONAL C0NTR0VEE8T. 

it was contended that a bank was a known and usual instrument, 
by which several of them were exercised. Taking into consid- 
eration the utility of a bank in managing the finances, and sup- 
porting public credit, the bill was passed in the House by a 
majority of nineteen voices. In the cabinet, the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, Mr. Randolph, and the Secretary of State, Mr. Jeffekson, 
were opposed to it on constitutional grounds, while the Secretary 
of the Treasury was in favor of it, and the President added his 
signature to the bill. 

"While the bill was under debate, Mr. Tuckee, of Georgia, 
remarked, " That a gentleman from Virginia has well observed 
that Ave appear to be divided by a geographical line ; not a gen- 
tleman !North of that line is opposed to the bill ; and wliere is 
the gentleman to the Southward that is in favor of it ? " The 
Northern States won the victory over the Southern, if not over 
the Constitution. 

THE EXCISE LAW. ' 

Tlie Excise law, by which a duty was laid on spirits distilled 
witldn the United States^ was oj)posed, very strongly, by a ma- 
jority of the members of Southern and Southwestern States, on 
the ground that it would operate very unequally and against the 
interests of their constituents, who used foreign distilled liquor to 
a very inconsiderable amount. The bill was passed by Northern 
members, influenced, it was said, by the fact that the commer- 
cial States depended chiefly on foreign spirits. Tlie whiskey in- 
surrection grew chiefly out of the opposition to this law. The 
law, thus operating unequally, was wisely repealed. 

THE ASSUMPTION OF STATE DEBTS. 

On the 0th of January, 1790, Mr. IIashlton, Secretary of the 
Treasury, gave notice to the House of RejDresentatives that he 
was ready to make his report on public credit, which he had 
prepared in obedience to the resolution of the 21st of Sept., 1789. 
In that celebrated report he proposed the Assumption of State 
debts, and to fund them in common with that which constituted 
l!ie proper debt of the Union, 



LOCATION OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT. 35 

This proposal was opposed by Soutliern members, on the 
ground that it would give undue influence to the General Gov- 
ernment, and would thus weaken the State Governments ; that 
it would not be justified by the Constitution, the powers of that 
instrument being specified, and this was not among them ; that 
it was unjust, because it would make no discrimination between 
those States which had taxed themselves to discharge the claims 
against them, and those which had not made the same exertions. 

In favor of the measure it was asserted by Northern mem- 
bers, that the debts contracted by the States were not contracted 
for the benefit of the individual States, but for the common good 
of the Union, in the war against the common enemy ; that tlie 
measure would put an end to speculation, by fixing the valu<; 
of the securities ; that it would restore public confidence. 

A large amount of these securities were owned at the ISorth, 
where they were obtained in the course of trade. Many of them 
had been purchased at very low rates, as was said, for a song. 

After a very heated debate, highly irritating to the j^arties, 
the resolution failed to pass, by a majority of two against it. 

LOCATION OF THE SEAT OF GOVEENMENT. 

July 9, 1790. Mr. Goodhue, of Massachusetts, moved in tlie 
House : " That the permanent seat of the General Government 
ought to be at some convenient place, on the east bank of the river 
Susquehanna, in the State of Pennsylvania." In support of his 
motion, he prefaced it Avitli the following remark : " The Eastern 
members, with the members from Iscw York, have agreed to fix 
on a place upon national principles, without regard to their own 
convenience, and have turned their minds to the Susquehanna." 
The place contemplated was Wright's Ferry, about 35 miles 
from navigable water. 

Tliis sectional movement on the part of Eastern and JS^orth- 
erii members, in favor of a place which had not a great deal to 
recommend it, awakened very strong sectional .feelings on the 
part of the Southern members, who were in favor of the l^ank 
of the Potomac, as an appropriate place. To this place the 
Northern members were strongly opposed, proposing, instead 
of it, if not Wright's Ferry, Germantown and Baltimore. 



30 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEEST. 

In ^iew of the above-mentioned combination of Nortbern 
members, Kicuakd H. Lek, in the course of his speech, said : 
" It is M'ell known with what dithculty the Constitution was 
adopted in Virginia. It was tlien said that there would be Con- 
federacies of the States east of Pennsylvania, which would 
destroy the Southern States ; that they would unite their coun- 
cils in discussing questions relative to their particular interests, 
and the Southern States would be disregarded. To these sus- 
picions it was answered : " No ! It was contended that the mag- 
luininious policy, arising from mutual interests and common dan- 
gers, would unite all the States, and make them pursue objects 
of general good. But if it should be found that there were such 
Confederacies as were predicted, that the Northern States did 
consult their partial interests, and form combinations to support 
them without regard to their Southern brethren, they would be 
alarmed, and the faith of all south of the Potomac would be 
shaken." 

Mr. Madison said, in the course of his remarks : " But give 
me leave now to say that, if proj^hets had arisen in that body, 
(the Convention of Virginia,) and brought the declarations and 
proceedings of this day to view, I as firmly believe Virginia 
might not have been a part of the Union at this moment." 



EAKGAIN IX CONGKESS. 

This measure became combined with the Assumption Bill. 
Each had failed by small majorities ; both were afterwards 
passed. The Eastern and Middle States were for the assump- 
tion ; the Southern States were against it ; the latter were for 
the Potomac for the seat of Government ; the former were for 
the Susquehanna. The discontent w^as extreme on each side, at 
losing its favorite measure. At last the two measures were com- 
bined. Two members from the Potomac, who had voted against 
the assumption, agreed to change their votes : a few from the 
Eastern and Middle States, who had voted against the Potomac 
agreed to change in its favor ; and so the two measures were 
passed. 

Mr. Jefferson gave this account of it, omitting his stric- 
tures : " This measure (the Assumption of State debts) produced 



BAEGAIN IX C0NGKES3. 37 

the most bitter and angry contest ever known in Congress before 
or since the Union of the States. I arrived in the midst of it ; 
but a stranger to the ground, a stranger to the actors in it, so 
long absent as to liave lost all familiarity with the subject, and 
as yet unaware of its object. I took no concern in it. The 
great and trying question, however, was lost in the House of 
Eepresentativcs. . So high were the feuds excited on this sub- 
ject, that, on its rejection, husiness was suspended, Congress met 
and adjourned from day to day without doing any thing, the 
23arties being too much out of temper to do business together. 
(The Eastern members threatened secession and dissolution.^ 
Hajiilton was in despair. As I was going to the President's 
one day, I met him in the street. He walked with me back- 
wards and forwards before the President's door for half an l^our. 
He ]3ainted pathetically the temper into which the Legislature 
had been wrought ; the disgust of those who were called the 
creditor States, (the ]S'orthern,)'^the danger of the secession of 
their members, and of the separation of the States. He ob- 
served that the members of the Administration ought to act in 
concert ; that though this question was not of my department, 
yet a common duty should make it a common concern ; that the 
President was the centre, in which all administrative questions 
ultimately rested, and that all of us should rally round him, and 
support, with joint efforts, measures approved by him, and that 
the question having been lost by a small majority only, that an 
appeal from me to the judgment and discretion of some of my 
friends might effect a change in the vote, and the machine of 
government, now suspended, might be again set in motion.)/ I 
told him I was really a stranger to the whole subject ; that, not 
having yet informed myself of the system of finances adopted, I 
knew not how far this was a necessary sequence ; that undoubt- 
edly, if its rejection endangered the dissolution of the Union at 
this incipient stage, I should deem that the most unfortunate of 
all consequences, to avert which all partial and temporary evils 
should be yielded. I proposed, however, to him, to dine with 
me, next day, and I would invite another friend or two, bring 
them into conference together, and I thought it impossible that 
reasonable men, consulting together coolly, could fail, by some 
mutual sacrifice of opinion, to form a compromise which would 



38 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEESY. 

save the Union. The discussion took place. I could take no 
part in it but an cxhortatory one, because I was a stranger to 
the circumstances which should govern it. But it was finally 
agreed that whatever importance was attached to the rejection 
of this proposition, the preservation of the Union and concord 
among the States was more important, and tlierefore it would 
be better that the vote of rejection should be rescinded — to eftect 
wliieh, some members should change their votes. But it was 
observed that this pill would be peculiarly bitter to the Southern 
States, and that some concomitant measure should be adopted 
to sweeten it to them. There had before been propositions to fix 
the seat of Government either at Philadelphia or at George- 
town, on the Potomac ; and it was thought that by giving it to 
Philadelphia for ten years, and to Georgetown permanently af- 
terwards, this might, as an anodyne, calm the ferment which 
might be excited by the other measure alone : so two of the 
Potomac members (White and Lee, but the former with a re- 
vulsion of stomach almost convulsive) agreed to change their 
votes, and Hamilton undertook to carry the other point."^ 
Abridgment of Debates^ vol. i., p. 250. '^ 

The Northern members contended with great earnestness 
against the Potomac for the seat of Government ; Mr. Boudinot, 
Mr. Ames, Mr. Laweence, severally, proposing the Delaware, 
Germantown, Baltimore, instead of the Potomac, which latter 
finally received a majority of the votes, probably through the 
influence of Hamilton. The Northern States, by the assump- 
tion of State debts by Congress, obtained millions, wliich en- 
riched many of their inliabitants, indeed, some of the members 
who helped to jxiss the bill. Tlic Southern States obtained for 
tlie seat of Government their favorite location, and a much bet- 
ter location than Wright's Ferry, which had been selected by 
the combination of Eastern members. 
•yl_ This is the first sectional comhinatlon in Congress for carry- 
ing a measure that I have seen noticed. The assumption of 
State debts furnished the occasion of the first threat of secession, 
and breaking up the Government. It was made by the North- 
ern members, v/ 



FUGrrrvES feom justice and feom labor. 39 

FUGITIVES FKOJr JUSTICE AND FROM LABOR. 

July 5, 1793. The House proceeded to consider tlic bill sent 
from the Senate, entitled " An act respecting fugitives from jus- 
tice and persons escaping from the service of their masters," 
which lay on the table ; whereupon the said bill, with the amend- 
ments agreed to yesterday, was read the third time ; and on the 
question that the same do pass, it Avas resolved in the affirma- 
tive ; yeas, 48, nays, 7. 

The bill came down from the Senate, whose debates were 
not published, and seems to have passed the House without de- 
bate, and almost without discussion, there being but seven votes 
against, and two of these, Messrs. Mercer and Parker, from 
slave States. Isor does it appear to what part of the bill they 
objected, whether to the part in relation to fugitives from 
justice, or to those who fled from service, for both classes of fu- 
gitives were comprehended in the same bill. It was passed on 
a message from President Washington, founded on a communi- 
cation from the Governor of Pennsylvania in relation to a fugi- 
tive from justice Avho had taken refuge in Yirginia, and because 
it was necessary to have an act of Congress to give effect to the 
rendition clause in the Constitution. There was but little ne- 
cessity, in those times, and long after, for an act of Congress to 
authorize the recovery of fugitive slaves. The laws of the States 
and still more, the force of public opinion, were the owners' best 
safeguards. Public opinion was against the abduction of slaves ; 
and, if any one was seduced from his owner, it was done fur- 
tively and secretly, without show or force, and as any other moral 
offence would be committed. State laws favored the owner to 
a greater extent than the acts of Congress did or could. In 
Pennsylvania an act was passed in 1780, and repealed only in 
1847, discriminating between the traveller and sojourner and 
the permanent resident, allowing the former to remain six 
months in the State before his slaves could become subject to 
emancipation laws ; and, in the case of a Federal Government 
officer, allowing as much more time as his duties required him 
to remain. New York had the same act, only varying in time, 
which was nine months. While these two acts yvom in ^-— —) 
and supported by public opinion, tlie traveller and sojourner 



40 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEEST. 

was safe with his slaves in these States, and the same in the 
other States. There was no trouble about fugitive slaves in 
those times. This act of 1793 did not grow out of any such 
troubles, but out of the case of a fugitive from justice. It was 
that ease which brought the subject before Congress, and in the 
:ict that was passed, the case of fugitives from justice was first 
provided for, the first and second sections of the act being given 
to that branch of the subject, and the third and fourth to the 
otlicr — all brief and plain, and executable -without expense or 
fuss. In the case of a slave, the owner was allowed to seize him 
Avherever he saw him, by day or by night, and Sundays or week 
days, just as if he were in his own State, and a penalty of $500 
attached to any person who obstructed him in this seizure. Tlic 
only authority he wanted was after the seizure, and to justify 
the carrying back, and for that j)urpose the affidavit of the owner 
or his agent was sufficient. This act was perfect except in rely- 
ing upon State officers not being subject to the Federal law, and 
being forbid to act after slavery became a subject of political 
agitation. — Bento7i's Debates^ vol. i., p. 412. 

Tlio lav/ was judiciously drawn, and entirely satisfactory to 
both sections of the country ; but the l^orthem States, in the 
progress of years, refused to carry it out, and placed obstacles 
in the way. 

MK. JEFFEESON's LETTEK TO GENERAL WASHINGTON. 

" PniLADELPniA, JLTrty 23, 1792. 
•::• •;j •::- u True wisdom would direct, that they (means) 
should be temperate and peaceable ; but the division of senti- 
ment and interest happens, unfortunately, to be so geographical, 
that no mortal can say that what is most wise and temj)eratc 
would prevail against what is most easy and obvious. I can 
scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking 
up of the Union into two or more parts. Yet, when we consider 
the mass which opposed the original coalescence ; when we con- 
sider that it lay chiefly in the Southern quarter ; that the Leg- 
islature have availed themselves of no occasion of allaying it, 
^»"<- on the contrary, when l^orthern and Southern prejudices 
have come into conUlcr, ilic latter have been sacrificed and the 



ME. Jefferson's letter to gen. Washington. 41 

former soothed, that the owners of the debt are in the Sonthcni, 
and the holders in the IsTorthern division ; tliat the anti-federal 
champions are now strengthened in their arguments by the ful- 
Hlment of their predictions ; that this has been brought about 
by the monarchical federalists themselves, who have been for 
the new Government merely as a stepping-stone to monarchy, 
and who have adopted the very construction of the Constitution 
of which, when advocating its acceptance before the tribunal of 
the people, they had declared it unsusceptible ; that the repub- 
lican federalists who espoused the same Government for its in- 
trinsic merits, are disarmed of their weapons ; that which they 
deemed as prophecy having become true as history ; who can 
be sure that these things may not proselyte the small number 
which was wanting to place the majority on the other side ? 
And this is the event at which I tremble, and to prevent which 
I consider your continuing at the head of aifairs as of the last 
importance. Tlie confidence of the whole Union is centred in 
you. Your being at the helm will be more than an answer to 
every argument which can be used to alarm and lead the people 
in any quarter into violence and secession. ISTorth and South 
will hang together, if they have you to hang upon." 

"We have here the fact that sectional differences of opinion 
and sectional feelings existed of a dangerous character, and that 
Washington was urged to accept of the Presidency a second 
time, in order to prevent " violence and secession." Allusion is 
also made to the large construction given to the text of the Con- 
stitution by those who controlled some of the departments of the 
Government. A dominant party are always under a temptation 
to enlarge the powers of the General Government at the expense 
of the powers reserved to the people of the several States. They 
are apt to think that their favorite measure had better be passed 
in Congress, or sanctioned by the Executive, even at the expense 
of the Constitution. Party leaders, even during the administra- 
tion of Washington, form no exception to this love of power. 

REMARKS. 

1. The administration of General Washington was distin- 
guished for the wisdom of its measures, for the energy with 



42 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEKST. 

whicli they were carried out, and for the great success which 
attended tliem. The several departments, the legislative, the 
judicial, and executive taking form, now for the first time, and 
lilled with men of experience, of undoubted patriotism, and of 
high talent, were in harmonv with one another. 

2. And yet, there was a difference of opinion in Congress, 
and in the cabinet, as to the construction to be given to the 
Constitution, in its application to the purposes for which it was 
framed. Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, the 
leading spirit in the Executive Department, was, in the Conven- 
tion, in favor of forming a strong government, and what he 
failed to accomplish in that body in the framework of the Con- 
stitution, he endeavored to work out in practice by a broad 
construction of that instrument, b}'- magnifying its " implied 
powers," and the " necessary powers." " Necessary powers " 
were understood to mean those powers that were deemed neces- 
sary to put the government in operation under the Consti- 
tution. 

The terms " necessary powers " and " implied powers " were 
vague, and would vary according to the character of the mind 
that should exercise a judgment concerning them. What would 
seem to be " necessary " and " implied " to one mind, would 
not seem " necessary " or " implied " to another mind. With 
Hamilton, his old companion in arms, Knox, the Secretary of 
War, acted in joromoting his views. 

Jefferson, Secretary of State, and Edmund Randolph, Attor- 
ney-General, differed from Hamilton in their views of the power 
granted to the General Government in the Constitution, and 
looked at the powers reserved to the States as well as at those 
delegated to the General Government. 

Hamilton, with his penetrating and logical mind, with his 
extraordinary energy, with his constructive and productive 
genius, had the ear of AVashington as well as of Ejiox, all of 
them military men, and all of them disgusted with the weak- 
ness of the old Confederation. 

Jefferson, with his gift of language, with his insight and fore- 
siffht. with his constructive mind, accustomofl to deal witli prin- 
ciples, Avas aided, in his view, by Ilandoli^li, whose plan of a 
Constitution had been adopted in the Convention, and who nn- 



EEMAEKS. 43 

derstood accurately what was its meaning, and wlio was not dis- 
posed to magnify its implied powers. 

In both Houses of Congress were leading men, who were 
also divided in their views as to the " implied powers " of the 
Constitution, a portion of them being in favor of a " broad con- 
struction " of its powers, and another portion being in favor of 
a " strict construction." Tlie practical men of the Northern 
States, Avho valued the Constitution chiefly for " commercial 
purposes," and who felt the value of public credit, generally 
adopted the views of Mr. Hamilton. The statesmen of the 
South, who looked at political principles and relations, generally 
adopted the views of Mr. Jefferson. 

3. Mr. Hamilton was an admirer of the British government, 
in which parliament has almost unlimited powers ; and it was 
supposed that he endeavored to assimilate the General Govern- 
ment to that, notwithstanding the rights reserved to the States. 
In his celebrated report of 1Y91 he claimed power for the Fed- 
eral Government to encourage learning, agriculture, and manu- 
factures, all under the authority to levy imports for the " gen- 
eral welfare." Mr. Jefferson was an admirer of the early prin- 
ciples of the French Kevolution, and was a hater of Great 
Britain, and in these respects he had the sympathy of the people 
of the United States, who remembered the wrongs they had re- 
ceived from the one nation, and the favors they had received 
from the other. The policy of the Administration in respect to 
the two nations was, to some extent, the ground of sectional 
difference of opinion, the leaders of the opposition being prin- 
cipally in the Southern States. 



CHAPTER lY. 



MK. JOnN ADAMS ADMINISTRATION. 
March 4, 1797— March 4, 1801. 

To the election of Mr. Adams there was an opposition in the 
Southern States, but not violent. It was generally conceded 
that liis patriotism, his talents, his experience, and services, en- 
titled him to the Presidency. 

But in the course of his administration, this sectional oppo- 
sition gained strength, chiefly on account of his war measures, 
l)y which eighty thousand men were subjected to his order, 
which was supposed to be contrary to the theory of our Gov- 
ernment ; the acts for increasing the navy ; and especially on 
account of the passage of the alien and sedition laws, and pros- 
ecutions under them. Tliis opposition was largely sectional, 
and was based chiefly on the exorbitant powers supposed to be 
(•laimed by the General Government. Tlie leading men in the 
opposition, for their defence, fell back on the Tesiduary jpower 
of the States secured by the Constitution^ as the means of pre- 
venting the establishment of a consolidated government instead 
of a Federal one. 

THE ASSERTION OF STATE EIGHTS. 

Yirglnia, at a meeting of her Legislature, early in the session 
of 1798, passed a scries of resolutions declaratory of State rights, 
and condemnatory of the alien and sedition laws, and other 
measures of the Government, as having a tendency to change 



THE ASSERTION OF STATE EIGHTS. 45 

its character from a Federal to a national Government. Amonc; 
other things, these resolutions affirm, that " it (the Legislature) 
views the powers of the General Government as resulting from 
the compact to which the States are parties, as limited by the 
plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that 
compact, as no further valid than they are authorized by the 
grants enumerated in that compact ; and that in case of a delib- 
erate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of poAvers not granted 
in said compact, the States who are parties thereto have the 
right, and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the prog- 
ress of the evil, and for maintaining within their resj)ective 
limits the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to 
them." 

In the resolutions passed by the Legislature of Kentucky in 
1798, it is declared " that whensoever the General Government 
assumes and delegates powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, 
and of no force ; that each State acceded as a State, and is an 
integral party, its co-States forming as to itself the other party ; 
that the Government created by this compact was not made the 
exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to 
it, since that would have made its discretion and not the Consti- 
tution the measure of its powers ; that, as in all other cases of a 
compact among parties having no common judge, each party 
has an equal right to judge for itself, as Avell of the infractions 
as the mode and measure of redress." 

The resolutions of Virginia were drawn up by Mr. Madison ; 
those of Kentucky were said to be sketched, but not fully pre- 
pared, by Mr. Jefferson. 

It was believed that the Administration, under the guidance 
of Northern men, had assumed powers not enumerated in the 
Constitution, and, in this way, had usurped powers belonging 
to the States. 

THE DOCTRINE OF STATE RIGHTS. 

As the doctrine of State rights has been adopted at different 
times, by both the South and the ITorth, in their relations to 
the General Government, it seems proper to give some account 
of its orio-in and its sectional influences. 



46 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEKST. 



LTrrnEE maetin s lettee. 



LrTiiER Maktin wrote a letter to tlie Legislature of Mary- 
land oil the formation of the Federal Constitution in 1787, and 
the composition of the Convention, of which the following is an 
extract : 
>jr " There was one party, whose object and wish is to abolish 
and annihilate all State Governments, and bring forward one 
General ' Governmeijt over this extensive continent, of a mo- 
narchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. 
Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but 
few ; yet it is equally true that there was a considerable number 
who did not openly avow it — who were, by myself and many 
others of the Convention, considered as being in reality favorers 
of that sentiment, and, acting uj)on those principles, covertly en- 
deavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and 
avowedly could not be accomplished. 

" The second party was not for the abolition of State Gov- 
ernments, nor for the introduction of a monarchical Government 
in any form ; but they wished to establish such a system as 
could give their own States undue power and influence in the 
Government over the other States. 

" A third party was what I considered truly Federal and 
Kepublican. Tliis l)arty was nearly equal in number with the 
other two, and was composed of the delegations from Connecti- 
cut, New York, Xew Jersey, and in part Maryland ; also of 
some individuals from other representations." </ 

T\\e first party here mentioned by Mr. MAExiNwas supposed 
to include Mr. Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris, and some others. 
The second party was supposed to include the delegates from 
Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and some other of the 
larger States. 

Colonel IIuMPHREYS, in his letter to General Washington, of 
the 20tli of January, 1787, describes the temper of a number 
of the States in the following language : " They have a mortal 
reluctance to divest themselves of the smallest attribute of inde- 
pendent, separate sovereignties." This temper showed itself in 
the convention in the speeches of the delegates. 

Friday^ June 20, 1787. — Doctor Johnson, of Connecticut, 



THE DOCTKIXE OF STATE EIGHTS. 47 

said, in the Federal Convention : " The controversy mnst l)c 
endless, "whilst gentlemen difler in the grounds of their argu- 
ments ; those on one side considering the States as districts of 
peoj)le composing one political society ; and those on the other 
considering them as so many political societies. Tlie fact is, the 
States do exist as so many political societies j and a government 
is to he formed for them in their political ccvpacity^ as 'well as 
for the individuals composing them. Does it not seem to fol- 
low, that, if the States as such are to exist, they omist he armed 
loith some jpower of self-defence ? " 

Mr. Ellswoeth, in the same debate, said : " Under a national A 
Government he should participate in the national security, as 
remarked by Mr. King ; but that was all. What he wanted 
was domestic happiness. The national Government could not 
descend to the local objects on which this depended. It could , 
only embrace objects of a- general nature. He turned his eyes, ) 
therefore, for the frcservedion of his rights, to the State Govern- 
uicnts. From these alone he could derive the greatest liappi- ' 
ness he expected in this life. His happiness depends on their / 
existence as much as a new-born infant on its mother for nour- 
ishment." 

So anxious was that distinguished statesman to preserve the 
rights of the States, that he moved in the Federal Convention 
that the term " national^'' should be stricken out of the Consti- 
tution ; and his motion was passed without opposition, and the 
objectionable term was stricken out. 

He and others preferred the term " Federal," because it de- 
scribed more accurately the nature of the Government which 
they were forming. The term ''''Federcd pertains to a league 
or compact, and is derived from an agreement or covenant be- 
tween parties, particularly between nations." Hence the friends 
of the Constitution, which was a compact or league between the 
States, were called Federalists. 

In a letter to Governor Huntingtox, dated l^ew London, 
September 26, 1787, Mr. Ellsworth and Mr. Siiermax unite in 
saying : 

" Some additional powers are vested in Congress, which was 
the principal object the States had in view in appointing the 
Convention ; those powers extend only to matters rcsi^ecting 



48 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEESY. 

the common interests of the Union, and are specially dejmed, so 
that the j^articular States retain their sovereignty in other mat- 
tersr 

Dr. Johnson, in the State Convention in Hartford, convened 
January 14, 1TS8, to ratiiy the Federal Constitution, said : 
'' The Constitution vests in the general Legislature a power to 
make laws in matters of national concern ; to appoint judges to 
decide u])on those laws ; and to appoint officers to carry them 
into execution. This excludes the idea of ein armed force. 
The ])ower which is to enforce these laws is to he a legal power, 
vested in the magistrates. [Not military.] Tlie force which is 
to be employed, is the energy of law ; and this force is to 
he employed only iqjoii individuals who fail in their duty to 
tlieir country. This is the glory of the Constitution, that it de- 
pends upon the mikl and equal energy of the magistracy for the 
execution of tlie laws." [Not upon military coercion.] 

Oliver Ellsworth, Jan. 7, 1788, in the State Convention, 
Hartford, 1788, said : " We see how necessary for the Union is 
a coercive principle. iN'o man pretends to the contrary. "We 
all see and feel this necessity. The only question is. Shall it he 
a coercion of law, or a coercion of arms ? There is no other 
jiossible alternative. Where would those, who oppose a coer- 
cion of law, come out ? Where will they end ? A necessary 
consequence of their principles is a war of the States, one against 
the other. I am for coercion by law ; that coercion which acts 
only upon delinquent individuals. The Constlt^ition does not 
attempt to coerce sovereign hodies — States in their political ca- 
I pacity. No coercion is applicable to such bodies but that of 
armed force. If we should attempt to execute the laws of the 
Union hj sending em armed force against a delinquent State, it 
would involve the good and bad, the innocent and guilty, in 
the same calamity. But this legal coercion singles out the 
guilty individual, and punishes him for breaking the laws." 

Mr. Law, in the same Convention, said : " Some suppose 
that the General Government, which extends over the whole, 
will annihilate the State Governments. But we ought to con- 
sider that this General Government rests on the State Govern- 
ments for its support. It is like a vast and beautiful bridge 
built upon thirteen strong and stately pillars. Now the rulers, 



THE DOCTKIXE OF STATE EIGHTS. 49 

those wlio occupy the bridge, cannot be so beside themselves as 
to knock away the pillars that support the whole fabric." 

The Constitution was formed on the idea that all powers 
granted to the General Government were " specialhj defined'''' or 
" enumerated^'' and that all powers, not " specially defined " or 
"• not enumerated," are retained by each of the States. 

In the formation and adoption of the Constitution, the States 
were the only agents. The State Legislatures appointed the 
delegates to the Convention. While there, they voted l)y States. 
Each delegation made its report to the Legislature or Governor 
of the States. Tlic Convention which assembled in the several 
States to ratify or reject the Constitution, was appointed by 
the people of the several States. Tlie parties to the " Constitu- 
tional Compact " were the States. Eogee Siiekman says : " And 
the Government of the L^nited States being Federal, and insti- 
tuted by a number of sovereign States for the better security of 
their rights, and the advancement of their interests," &c. — Let- 
ter to John Adams. 

The motion Avas made in the Convention to give Congress 
power to negative all State laws contravening the articles of 
Union, and thus to abridge the rights of the several States. 
This motion was rejected by a vote of seven States against 
three. 

. Thursday, 2Iay 31, 1787. — Li the plan of a Constitution 
proposed by Governor TtANDOLPii, and generally adopted by the 
Convention, provision was made " authorizing the exertion of 
the force of the other States against a delinquent State." Tlu> 
efiect of this would be to abridge the rights of the States. 

Mr. Madison observed, " that the more he reflected on the 
use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice, 
and the efiicacy of it, when applied to a people collectively and 
not individually. A union of the States, containing such an 
ingredient, seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use 
of force against a State would look more like a declaration of 
war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be 
considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous 
compacts by which it might be bound. lie hoped such a sys- 
tem might be framed as would render this resource umiecessary, 



50 THE SKCTIoNAL CONTROVERSY. 

and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was 
agreed to, neni. con.'''' — Madison Papers, p. T61. 

Alexander IlAiiiLTON used the followino; hano;ua<xe on the 
same subject. After referring to the case of Shay's rcbelhon, 
in •svhich military force could be properly employed, and for 
which " Massachusetts was making provision," by State author- 
ity, he adds : " But how can this force be exerted on the States 
collectively ? (against State authority.) It is impossible. It 
amounts to a declaration of war between the parties. Foreign 
jjowers also will not be idle spectators. They will interpose ; 
the confusion will increase ; and a dissolution of the Union will 
ensue." — Idem, p. 881. 

Tlius it appears that no State can constitutionally be coerced 
by the other States by force of arms. 

In the Convention, so determined were the advocates of State 
rights not to give up certain of these to the General Government, 
that the Convention came to a dead stand, and was in danger of 
failing entirely to accomplish the object for which they assem- 
bled. Charles Pinckney declared, that for nearly six weeks 
the small States pertinaciously struggled to obtain equal power 
in both branches. 

The term " United States " was in constant use when the 
Constitution was framed, with a fixed and definite meaning in 
the minds of men, namely, the same as in the Articles of Con- 
federation. That document is described as " Articles of Con- 
federation, and perpetual union between the States of Xew 
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, &c. Article I. The 
style of this Confederacy shall be. The United States of 
America.'''' 

ISTow it is evident that tlic term " United States," in the 
Constitution, means the same th-at it does in the Articles of 
Confederation, and is equivalent to New Hampshire, Massa- 
chusetts, (fee, united, or the States united. They formed a 
union by a compact Jjctioccn themselves. Article YII. " The rat- 
ification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufiicient for 
the establishment of this Constitution hetween the States so rati- 
fying the same." Here the word is hetioeen, not over. Tlie 
Constitution is a compact between the States. " "We the people 
of the United States," evidently must mean the same as we the 



THE DOCTKINE OF STATE EIGHTS, 51 

people of New Hampsliire, Massachusetts, &c., taken severally, 
and not collectively / that is, the peoi^le of New Hampshire and 
the peoj)le of Massachusetts, occ. The people who voted for the 
Constitution by States must have understood the phrase as mean- 
ing the same in the Constitution that it does in the Articles of 
Confederation, namely, the people of the several States, and not 
the people of America, taken collectively as one people. It was 
a majority of the people of eacJi State acting by itself that 
adopted the Constitution, and not a majority of the people of 
all the States taken collectively. 

Indeed, the people of all the States have never acted to- 
gether as one whole. Even in the election of President, the 
people vote by separate States, not for a President, but for 
State electors. A majority of the people O'f the whole country 
do not appoint electors, but a majority of each separate State. 
If the electors fail to elect a President, then the States as States 
in Congress assembled appoint the President ; Rhode Island 
having one vote and New York no more. And if the House 
of Pepresentatives fail of making a choice, the Senate, ap- 
pointed by the several States, shall elect a Yice-President, who 
shall act as President of the States. 

The Southern States became dissatisfied with. Mr. Ad^uis 
and his measures, and a portion of them looked to the doctrines 
of State rights for relief. 

To Jonx Taylor of Yirginia, Mr. Jeffeesox addressed a 
letter, June, 1T9S. In it he says: " It is true that we are com- 
pletely under the saddle of Massachusetts and Connecticut, and 
they ride us very hard, cruelly insulting our feelings, as well as 
exhaustino; our strength and subsistence. Tlieir natural friends, 
the three other Eastern States, join them from a sort of family 
pride, and they have the art to divide certain other parts of the 
Union, so as to make use of them to govern the whole." 

" If we rid ourselves of the present rulers of Massachusetts 
and Connecticut, we break the Union ; will the work stop there ? 
Suppose the New England States alone cut off, will our nature 
be changed? Are there not men to the South witli all the 
passions of men? Immediately we shall see a Pennsylvania 
and Yirginia party arise in the residuary Confederacy, and the 
public mind will be distracted with the same party spirit." 



52 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEKSY. 

In another place he says : " Mr. New showed me your letter 
on the subject of the protest, which gives me an opportunity of 
observing what you said as to the effect with you of public pro- 
ceedings, and that it is not unwise now to estimate the sepa- 
rate map of Virginia and North Carolina, with a view to their 
separate existence." " Seeing we must have somebody to 
quarrel with, I had rather keep our New England associates 
for that purpose, tlian to see our bickerings transfeiTcd to others. 
They are circumstanced within such narrow limits, and their 
population so full, that their numbers will soon be in the minor- 
ity ; and they are marked, like the Jews, with such perversity 
of character, as to constitute, from that circumstance, the natural 
division of our parties." 

'• During the Administration of Mr. Adams, Yirginia was 
almost in open revolt against the national authority, merely 
because a Yankee, and not a Virginian, was President."' — Life 
of G. Morris^ vol. iii., p. 19G. 

Joujsr Adams, when President, wrote as follows : "I have 
found this Congress like the last. "When we first came together, 
I found a strong jealousy of us of New England, and of Mas- 
sachusetts in particular." — Life and Times of John Adams, 
vol. i., p. 176. 

'• You incpiire why so young a man as Mr. Jeffeeson was 
placed at the head of the committee for preparing the Declara- 
tion of Independence ; I answer, it was the Frankfort advice to 
place Yirginia at the head of every thing." — Life and Times of 
John Adams, vol. ii., p. 513. 

REMARKS. 

1. The sectional feeling, which existed during General 
"Washington's Administration, became intensified, especially 
in the South, during the Administration of Mr. Adams ; he be- 
ing a Northern man, and sustained chiefly by Northern men, 
and by several of the Northern States. In the view of the 
party opposed to him, Jus policy savored too much of mon- 
archy, and tended to exalt and extend the powers of the 
General Government towards a conformity to the English 
government, to the disparagement of the reserved rights of the 



KEMAEKS. 5d 

States. The Virginia and Kentncky Resolutions were pro- 
fessedly brouglit forward in order to restrain that policy, and 
to preserve to the States their Constitutional relations to the. 
Federal Government. But sectional or party feeling had much 
to do in this matter. 

It is somewhat remarkable, that Virginia was, in the Con- 
stitutional Convention, opposed to reserving large powers to the 
several States, on some important points, and yet was the first 
to place herself on her reserved powers, and, as some would 
say, to magnify those powers. Thus Virginia voted in favoi' 
■of giving the Federal Legislature power to negative State laws 
contravening the articles of union, and voted against giving 
equal rights to the States in the Senate. Patkick IIeney, in 
the Virginia Convention, tauntingly said : " Why are such ex- 
tensive powers given to the Senate ? Because the little States 
gained their point." The " little States " did, indeed, gain their 
point as against the farge States, but they also gained their 
point for each of the large States as against the popular vote of 
the whole Union. In practice, Virginia has enjoyed this ad- 
vantage. 

2. Some of the Northern States, while they had a prevailing- 
influence during the presidency of General Washington and 
of Mr. Adams, were accused of endeavoring to enlarge the 
powers of the General Government ; and yet those same States, 
when that influence was impaired during the Administration 
of Mr. Jeffeeson and of Mr. Madison, placed themselves on 
the reserved rights of the States, in their opposition to the Gen- 
eral Government. This subject will be resumed in statements 
concerning Mr. Madison's Administration. 

3. The States were the only parties to the " Constitutional 
Compact." This phrase, equivalent to the word Constitution, 
and descriptive of it, is used in the Eeport of the Hartford Con- 
vention, and by eminent statesmen. 

-1. The Constitution contains only delegated powers. " The 
State Governments may be regarded as constituent and essen- 
tial parties of the Federal Government, while the latter is in no 
wise essential to the operation of the former." — Madison, No. 
45 of The Federalist. The '' constituent," by the force or mean- 
ing of the term, is superior to the delegate. 



/~ 



CHAPTER V. 

MR. JEFFEKSOX'S ADMIXISTEATIOX. 
March 4, 1801— March 4, 1809. 

Mk. Jefferson was friendly to France, rather than to Eng- 
land ; was in fixvor of a strict constrnction of the Constitution, 
by which the rights of the several States, and of the people of 
those States, would be protected against any usurpations of the 
General Government. lie received 73 electoral votes for the 
presidency, nearly all the Southern States voting for him. Mr. 
BuKR received the same number of votes. 

Mr. Adams received G5 votes ; his strength lying chiefly in 
the ISTorthern States. 

Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Burr received an equal number of 
votes ; it remained for the House of Ilepresentatives, voting by 
States, to determine the choice. 

A portion of the federal party, which had cast its electoral 
vote for JouN Adams and Cuarles C. Pixcicney, had resolved 
that States represented by that party should throw their votes 
for Aaron Burr, himself a democrat, instead of Jefferson, 
whom the democrats wished to elect President. On the 17th 
February, 1801, after balloting in the House 3G times, Thomas 
Jefferson was elected President, Connecticut.^ Jfassachiiscits, 
JV^ew JIamps/iirc, and Hlwde Island voting to the last for 
Aaron Burr. 

• Commercial Advertiser., Xcw York, Feb. 23, 1801. — " Our 
communications from the City of Washington are as late as 
Thursday, half-past 3 o'clock, A. M. At that time the ballot- 



SPIEIT OF THE TIMES. 55 

ing liad been postponed, an hour at a time ; wlien the hour 
expires and the members are called to proceed again, it is 
ludicrous to see some of them rushing with anxiety from the 
committee rooms, with their night caps on. Numbers of them 
are proA-ided with pillows and blankets ; and the contest would 
seem to be who has the most strength of constitution, or who 
is mo^ able to bear fatigue. Many of them lie down in their 
places, resolving (at least to sleep, if not) to die at their posts." 



SPIRIT OF THE TESIES. 
Washington Federalist, February 12, 1801. 

" Unworthy will he be, and consecrated his name to infamy, 
who, with a view to the permanency of our political system, 
has hitherto strenuously opposed the exaltation of Mr. Jefferson 
to the Presidential chair, shall now, meanly and inconsistently, 
lend his aid to promote it. Such conduct will be dishonorable 
in the extreme. Such conduct, therefore, cannot possibly char- 
acterize the Federal party. ■" - '" 

" But, say the bold and impetuous partisans of Mr. Jeffer- 
son, and that, too, in the teeth of the assembled Congress of 
America, Dare to designate any officer Avhatever, even tempo- 
rarily to administer the government, in the want of the non- 
agreement, on the part of the House of Representatives, and we 
will march and dethrone him as a iisurper. Dare, in fact, to 
exercise the right of opinion, and place in the Presidential chair 
any other than the sage of Monticello, and ten thousand Pepulv 
lican swords will leap from their scabbards in defence of the 
violated rights of the ])coiile. "''•' "- ^'' 

" Are they, then, ripe for civil war, and ready to embrue 
their hands in kindred blood I 

" If the tumultuous meetings of a set of factious foreigners 
in Pennsylvania, and a few fighting bacchanals in Yirginia, 
mean the people, and are to dictate to the Congress of the 
United States whom to elect as President ; if the constitutional 
rights of this body are so soon to become the prey of anarchy 
and faction ; if we are already arrived at that disastrous period 
in the life of nations, when ' liberty consists in no longer rever- 
encing either the laws or the authority ; ' if, in short, the scenes 



56 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

that sadden the history of the elective monarchies of Europe arc 
so soon to be reacted in America, it would be prudent at once 
to prepare for the contest : tlie "woful experiment, if tried at all. 
could never be tried at a more favorable conjuncture. 

" With the militia of Massachusetts, consisting of seventy 
thousand, (regulars let us call them,) in arms ; ■with those of Isew 
Ilampsliire, united almost to a man ; -svith half the number of 
the citizens of the other States, ranged under the Federal ban- 
ner in support of the Constitution, what could Pennsylvania do, 
aided by Virginia? the militia of the latter, untrained and far- 
cically performing the manual exercise with coi'nstallis instead 
of muskets, burdened besides with a formidable internal foe, 
whose disposition has been shown in not very agreeable colors, 
a foe, too, in contest against whom, Mr. Jefferson declares, the 
Almiglity has no attribute which could induce him to take a 
part ; wliat, may it be asked, would be the issue of the strug- 
gle ? Let these madmen reflect on these things. Let them for- 
bear their menaces. Let them respect the decision of the con- 
stituted authorities." 

Li the Connecticut Courant, Hartford, September 22, 1800, 
a writer, signing himself Burleigh, after speaking of tlie evils 
of slavery, uses the following language : 

" To avoid sharing in these calamities, and, perhaps, with 
the hope of saving the Government, the Northern States will 
probably be disposed to separate the LTnion. This, though an 
evil of mighty magnitude, is less, far less, than anarcliy or sla- 
very. Should such an event take place, where the border States 
will be is not for me to say. Perhaps the Potomac, the Dela- 
ware, or the Hudson, like the Rhine, may part rival hostile na- 
tions, and the shores of one of theni be perpetually crimsoned 
with the blood of the inhal)itants." 

Boston Gazette^ December 24, 1801 : " It was a good thing, 
in the District Court of Connecticut, to let Mr. Jefferson know, 
that when lie attempted to restore hy Jiis order to his good 
friends the French, the prize-money of a French schooner, which 
was captured and legally condemned as a lawful prize in the 
court, that he was feeling power and forgetting right. Mr. 
Jefferson has so long been accustomed to govern slaves, that 
he hardly knows how to act in the government of freemen. 



SPIRIT OF THE TIMES. 57 

But, however implicitly his commands in a land of slavery may 
have been obeyed, he must be careful how he orders without 
authority in ISTew England, as he will surely get himself af- 
fronted." 

From the Boston Gazette^ December 28, 1801, and credited 
to the American Minerva : " New England people turned aris- 
tocrats ! say the Southern gentlemen. This is very odd. Let 
us examine the fact, and compare New England aristocracy 
with Southern democracy. An Eastern aristocrat is a Kew 
England farmer. Nine out of ten of all these people are men 
of small landed estates, consisting of from fifty to two hundred 
acres of land, and worth one thousand to three thousand dollars. 
There is not one in twenty of them that ever owned a slave ; 
and those who have tliem are getting rid of them as fast as they 
can, without injury to the slaves. The farmer himself, his wife, 
his sons and daughters, all labor in person on the farm or at 
the spinning-wheel. A farmer in New England who docs not 
labor in person, is no more to be found than a planter in Yir- 
ginia or Carolina who does. If they have occasion to hire la- 
boring men, they associate with them and eat at the same table. 
In the whole village there is little or no distinction of rank ; the 
farmers and mechanics, the justice of the peace, and the black- 
smith, all associate on equal terms. There is no such thing as 
a farmer's commanding his workmen ; he treats them all as his 
(Equals. These people are generally very civil and obliging ; 
they make bows to each other, and teach their children to do 
the same. This is New England aristocracy. 

" Virginia democracy is a very different thing. A democrat, 
in the Southern States, is a planter or other person who owns a 
large number of slaves — who is above labor himself, and not 
only so, but is above the drudgery of overseeing his own busi- 
ness. He commits it to a steward and a negro driver. He es- 
tablishes all the ranks of the feudal system in his own family. 
The planter is king or lord paramount ; his children are nobles ; 
the tutor, the steward, and clerk, are the commons ; and the 
laboring people and the blacks are the vassals. Yet this planter 
is a mighty democrat, a warm stickler for the rights of man, for 
liberty, and, what is more, equalitij. This little domestic mon- 
arch writes and spoiits incessantly about iha funding system. 



58 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

and the danger of power, lie will not labor — not lie ; this is 
the business of slaves. He will not associate with the laboring 
people ; he will not cat at the same table. His sons must not 
labor ; this would disgrace them. They are seen at a tavern 
from morning to night, sawing a fiddle or playing at billiards. 

" A New England Aristocrat^ on Sunday, puts saddle and 
pillion on a team horse, takes his wife behind him and his child 
on a pillow before him, and rides to church ; and when he gets 
home, he reads a sermon, or a chapter in the Bible, and teaches 
his children some catecliism. 

" The Southern Democrat, on Sunday, gets into his coach, if 
he has it, or can borrow one, and, accompanied by two or three 
dirty, ragged, half-naked slaves, rides to some friends or to some 
amusement. It is idle to deny these things ; thousands of wit- 
nesses can attest tliem. Let the truth, then, be acknowledged. 
Let the charge of Aristocracy fall where it ought. Tlie ]S"orthern 
people are the most Republican in the universe ; equality reigns 
among them in reality ; but they expect law and order, and 
when they have a government they wish to keep it." 

RESTRICTIONS UPON COMMERCE. 

In opposition to British encroachments, a memorial was pre- 
sented to Congress by the Boston merchants, dated January 20, 
1806, urging that " such measures should be promptly adopted 
as will tend to disembarrass our commerce, assert our rights, 
and support the dignity of the United States." Similar memo- 
rials were presented, about the same time, by the merchants of 
New York and of Philadelphia. 

The " Berlin Decree," by ISTapoleon, was declared ^November 
1, ISOG. The " British Orders in Council " were declared No- 
vember 11, 1807. The " Milan Decree," by Napoleon, was de- 
clared December 17, 1807. 

To meet these decrees and orders in council, ruinous as they 
were to American commerce, the embargo was laid on the 23d 
of December, 1807. 

" It was generally believed, at the North, that the embargo 
was the result of a combination between Southern and Western 
States, to ruin the Eastern." In a memorial from the town of 



THE PURCHASE OF LOUISIANA. 59 

Boston to the Legislature of Massacliii setts, Jaimary 25, 1S09, 
requesting the " interposition " of that body to relieve the citi- 
zens from their " grievances," is the following : " 0>.ir hope and 
consolation rest with the Legislature of our State, to whom it i.s 
coin])etcnt to devise means of reJiff against the iinconstitutional 
measures of the General Government ', that your power is ade- 
quate to this object, is evident yr{>??z. the organization of the 
Confederacy^ Other towns in Massachnsetts expressed the 
same sentiments to the Legislature in more decided terms, point- 
ing to resistance to the Federal Government. 

" If petitions do not produce a relaxation or removal of the 
embargo, the people ought immediately to assume a higher 
tone. The Government of Massachnsetts has also a duty to 
perform. The State is still sovereign and independent.^' — Boston 
Centincl^ September 10, 1808. 

Li the same spirit Northern statesmen spoke : '* To my 
mind the present crisis excites the most serious apprehensions. 
A storm seems to he gcdhering^ which portends not a tempest on 
the ocean, but domestic convidsions. I feel myself bound in 
conscience to declare, lest the blood of those who should fall in 
executing this measure (enforcing the embargo) may lie on my 
head, that I consider this to be an act which directs a mortal 
blow at the liberties of my country — an act containing uneou- 
stitutional provisions, to which the iKople are not hovnd, to snh- 
7nit, and to which, in my opinion, they will not submit." — 
Speech of Mr. Hilliiouse, of Connecticut.^ in the Sencde of the 
United States, January, 1809. 

The embargo was repealed March 1, 1809. 

THE PURCHASE OF LOUISIANA. 

To the proposal of Mr. Jefferson to purchase Louisiana the 
Eastern States were strongly opposed, though the great impor- 
tance of preserving the free navigation of the Mississippi M'as 
acknowledged. To prevent the purchase, ridicule, sarcasm 
without mercy, menace of the separation of the States, as well 
as argument, were employed by their representatives in Con- 
gress, and by the editors of newspapers. 

The ground of this violent opposition was the apprehension 
that the Southern and Western States would, by the admission 



60 THE SECTIONAL COXTROVEKSY. 

of Louisiana, acquire an undue influence in the General Govern- 
ment. In the debate upon the admission of Louisiana, Mr. 
QuiNCY, of Massachusetts, used the following language in Con- 
gress, January 15, 1811 : " If this bill j)asses, it is my deliberate 
opinion " (wliich he committed to writing to prevent inisappre- 
liension) " that it is virtually a dissolution of the Union i that 
it will free the States from their moral obligation ; and, as it 
will be the right of all^ so it will be the duty of some Xo prepare 
for separation, amicably if they can, violently if they must." 
These were the sentiments of a large number in Kew England 
at that time. Most of them lived to adopt more patriotic views, 
when they saw the relation and value of Louisiana to the whole 
country. A committee of the Legislature of Massachusetts, 
1813, reported the following : 

^'■licsolved, that it is the interest and duty of the people of 
Massachusetts to oppose the admission of such States (Louisiana) 
into the L'nion, as a measure tending to dissolve the Confed- 
eracy." 

1. By the election of Mr. Jeffekson, the Eastern States had 
lost much of their influence in the General Government. They 
accused him of being unfriendly to the interests of commerce, 
and of not taking energetic measures for its protection against 
the encroachments of England and France, and of laying the 
embargo in disregard of their interests. 

2. Several of the Eastern States made a great mistake in 
voting for Aaeon Buer in opposition to Mr. Jefferson, on sec- 
tional grounds, Avlien the election came into the House of liep- 
resentatives. They had the constitutional right to do so ; but 
it was not to their honor to endeavor to thwart the wishes of 
the people of the several States, who had voted for electors who 
were in favor of Mr. Jefferson for President, and of Mr. Burr 
for Yice-Presidcnt. They voted for Mr. Burr, who proved to 
1)0 a bad man, on sectional grounds. 

3. The opposition to the purchase of Louisiana was largely 
sectional, springing as it did from the apprehension that the in- 
troduction of new States made from it would still further dimin- 
ish the influence of the Eastern States. Tlie purchase was, 
•confessedly, unconstitutional. 



CHAPTEE VI. 

ME. Madison's adjiinistkation. 

March 4, 1809— March 4, 1817. 

Mr. Madison Lad acted with the Xorth in framing the Con- 
stitution ; but he had acted with the South generally in the in- 
terpretation of its powers. 

The foreign policy adopted by Mr, Jeffekson in the admin- 
istration of the Government, was continued by Madison, inju- 
rious though it was to the interests of the commercial States. 
The commerce of the country was crushed between the upper 
and the nether millstones of the British orders in council, and 
the Berlin and Milan decrees. By the one, American ships 
were excluded from Great Britain ; and by the other, from 
France, to the ruin of our commerce. Mr. Madison, like Mr. 
Jefferson, was accused of favoring France rather than Eng- 
land, and thus of increasing the evil, first by a commercial con- 
test with the latter nation, by a non-intercourse act, and by an 
embargo of ninety days, in the way of reprisal, and then by the 
declaration of war. 

To these measures the Is'orthern States, and especially Kew 
England, were violently opposed. And their opposition was 
manifested in newspapers, speeches, and conventions, in bitter 
and determined language. During the embargo, their ships 
were rotting at the wharves or on the stocks. Tlieir seamen 
were idle, and restless, and unhappy. Grass grew in the streets 
of cities which had been marts of commerce. Bankruptcy was 
felt or feared. Their harbors were no longer whitened by the 



62 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEKST. 

sails of successful commercial adventure. Thousands could say, 
" My occupation is gone." 

The Southern States, on the other hand, generally sustained 
these anti-commercial measures, and thus provoked the resent- 
ment of the North, and the fiercest denunciations. As a speci- 
mcn of the feelings that prevailed, read the following, originally 
2)uhlished in the Connecticut Journal, 1S12, from an article en- 
titled, ^'^ Slave Representation^'' by Bokeas: 

" ' Awake ! O spirit of the North.' 

" Tlie article authorizing the Southern negroes to be repre- 
sented in Congress is the rotten jj'^irt of the Constitution, and 
inust he amputated. Since the commencement of the Govern- 
ment, its whole undivided influence has been only putrefactive 
and deadly, although before the fatal change of men and meas- 
ures on the fourth of March, 1801, its effects were not percepti- 
bly felt on the sounder members of the body politic. That 
change was wholly eflected by slave representation. Tlie slave 
electoral votes first brought Mr. Jefferson into the Presidency ; 
and the slave votes in Congress have turned the majority in 
favor of many of the worst measures which the Virginia faction 
have dared to bring forward. '- "- "' 

" If this stain upon the face of the Constitution, this impress 
of mischief and dishonor, is ever to be blotted out, it must be 
done at a time when the ISTortu, roused by repeated injuries, 
and provoked by galling oppression, shall appeal directly to 
her own strength, and to ihcfeai^s and iveakness of the country 

OF SLAVES. 

" At a time when these injuries are deeply felt, and these op- 
pressions are boldly resisted, ^vould we call upon all the men of 
the North to unite as one man, and that a strong man, armed 
to take a solemn view of the magnitude and injustice of the 
grievance, and then at every hazard to apply the needed rem- 
edy. - * * 

" On this subject, all the ]S"ortli have a common interest. To 
the MEN OF TUE NORTH WO would boldly and directly make the 
solemn appeal : Will you suftcr the slave country to triumph 
any longer in this palpable fraud ? Will you still look coolly on 
and witness this foul blot on the page of the Constitution, this 



SECTIOXAX, OPPOSITION TO TUE AVAR OF 1812. 63 

deep stigma on' the national lionor ? If you will, go, and for 
twelve long, weary years sec the commerce of tlie nation bound, 
her agriculture blasted, her coffers lavished, and her glory tram- 
pled in the dust, by the very man whom Southern slaves have 
lifted into office.'' 

SECTIONAL OPPOSITION TO THE WAE OF 1812. 

The JS'orthem States, having adopted the Federal Constitu- 
tion mainly for promoting their coiamercial interests, wei"e very 
indignant at the passage of the embargo act of 1807, on recom- 
mendation of Mr. Jefferson ; and threats were uttered, first in 
undertones and then loudly, that they would secede — at least a 
portion of them — from the Union, and form a new confederacy. 
On the first of March, 1809, just before the accession of Mr. 
Madison, the embargo act was repealed, " to appease the Isqw 
England States." 

War was declared against Great Britain, in due form, on 
the 18th of June, 1812, by a vote of T2 to 49 in the House of 
Representatives, and 19 to 13 in the Senate. To this war there 
was a strong opposition manifested in the Eastern States, in the 
pulpit, the press, in public speeches, and private conversation. 
Ministers of the Gospel called it an " unholy war," an " un- 
righteous war." At the time when our armies were invadino; 
Canada, some of them prayed " that all invading armies might 
be cut off," and " that they who take the sword might perish 
by the sword." The Kev. Mr. Gardiner, in a sermon preached 
July 23, 1812, in Boston, uses the following language : " The 
Union has long since been dissolved, and it is full time that this 
part of the United States should take cure of itself." Rev. Dr. 
Parish, in Byfield, Mass., delivered a sermon April 7, 1814, in 
which he uses the following language : " The Israelites became 
weary of yielding the fruit of their labor to pamper tyrants. 
They left their political woes. They separated. Where is our 
Moses ? Where is the rod of his miracles ? Where is our Aa- 
ron? Alas ! no voice from the burning bush lias directed him 
here." These are only specimens. 

The press teemed with similar sentiments. " My plan is to 
withhold our money, and make a separate peace with England." — 



64 THE SECTIONAL COXTKOVEKSY. 

Boston Advertiser. " Tliat there will be a revolution, if the 
war coutiiiues, no one can doubt who is acquainted with human 
nature, and is accustomed to study cause and effect. The East- 
ern States are marching steadily and straightforward up to the 
object." — Federal Repuhlican. These are specimens. 

" "We call upon our State Legislature to protect us in the 
enjoyment of those privileges, to assert which our fathers died, 
and to defend which we profess ourselves ready to resist unto 
MoodP — Meviorial of the citizens of Neichuryport^ Mass., Janu- 
ary 13, 181-1. " Resolved, that we place the fullest confidence 
in the Governor and Legislature of Massachusetts, and in the 
State autiiorities of New England ; and that to them, under 
God, tlie chief Governor of the Tini verse, we look for aid and 
direction ; and that, for the present, until public opinion shall 
be known, "\ve will not enter our carriages, ^m?/ our Continental 
taxes, or aid, inform, or assist any officer in their collection." — 
Passed hy the inhabitants of Reading, 3fass., January 5, 1815. 
"yl separatio7i of the States will be an inevitable result. Mo- 
tives, numerous and urgent, will demand that measure. As they 
originate in oppression, the oppressors must be responsible for 
the momentous and contingent events arising from the dissolu- 
tion of the present Confederacy, and erection of separate govern- 
ments. It will be their work." — Iforthern Gnevances, p. 4, 
May, 181-i. Tliese are specimens. 

" Yes, sir, I consider this Administration as alien to us, so 
much so, that New England would be justified in declaring 
them like all foreign nations, enemies in war, in peace friends." 
" The States of New England can never be satellites in any sys- 
tem ; but, like the primary planets, they will revolve round the 
sun of Federalism, until the Almighty hand, which created 
them, shall dash them from their orbits forever." — Cykus King, 
of Massachusetts, in Congress, October 22, 181-1. 

" On or before the fourth of July next, if James Madison is 
not out of office, a new form of government "v^'ill be in operation 
in the Eastern section of the ZJnion. Listantly after, tlie con- 
test in many of the States will be, whether to adhere to the old, 
or to join the new Government." — Federal Iiepuhlican,^Q\QR\' 
ber 7, 1814. 



THE HAKTFOED CONVENTION. 65 



THE HAETFOED CONVENTION. 

" Early in the year ISl-i, memorials from a great many 
to'vrns in Massachusetts, were forwarded to the Legislature of 
that State, j)raying that body to exert their authority to protect 
the citizens in their Constitutional rights and privileges, and 
suggesting the expediency of appointing delegates to meet dele- 
gates from such other States as may choose to appoint them, 
for the purpose of devising proper measures to procure the 
united efforts of the commercial States to obtain such amend- 
ments and explanations of the Constitution as "will secure them 
from further evils," 

Accordingly, on the 16tli of October, 1814, by a large ma- 
jority of the Legislature — 260 yeas, 90 nays — twelve men were 
appointed as delegates from Massachusetts to meet in conven- 
tion other delegates from the other !Ncw England States. 

The Convention met in Hartford on the 15th of December, 
1814. There were twelve members from Massachusetts ; seven 
from Connecticut ; four from Khode Island ; three from I^ew 
Hampshire ; one from Yermont. They were gentlemen of the 
highest character for intelligence, wisdom, and j)atriotism. Af- 
ter a session of three weeks, they made a report of the result of 
their conference. 

In order to remo"S'e the evils under which they were suffer- 
ing, and prevent their recurrence, the Convention proposed cer- 
tain amendments to the Federal Constitution ; by which the slave 
States would be deprived of the slave representation, as at pres- 
ent provided ; and by which, new States would be prevented 
from coming into the L^nion, except by a vote of two-thirds of 
both Houses ; and by which. Congress would be deprived of 
power to lay an embargo for more than sixty days ; and by 
which. Congress shall not have power, without the concurrence 
of two-thirds of both Houses, to interdict the commercial inter- 
course between the United States and any foreign nation ; and 
by which, Congress shall not have power to make or declare 
war against a foreign nation, without the concurrence of two- 
thirds of both Houses ; and by which, persons naturalized here- 



t>6 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

lifter shall not be eligible to certain oflfices ; and by -^-hich, no 
jierson shall be a second time elected President. 

It was also resolved bj the Convention, that in the event of 
the continuance of the present evils, without a prospect of re- 
lief, it will, in the opinion of the Convention, be expedient 
for the Legislatures of the several States to send delegates to 
another Convention, to meet in June next. Provision was also 
made for calling another meeting of the Convention, if it should 
be desirable, before new delegates shall be chosen. 

Li that report, drawn up with great ability, they discuss the 
subject of the dissolution of the Union^ to which public atten- 
tion had been earnestly turned, and the formation of a new Con- 
federacy, as the means of escaping the evils under which the 
commercial States were suffering. Such a dissolution, they 
say, should " be the work of peaceable times and deliberate 
consent ; " " some new form of Confederacy should be substi- 
tuted among those States which shall intend to maintain a 
Federal relation to each other." " Whenever it shall appear 
that these causes (of our calamities) are radical and permanent, 
a separation, by mutual arrangement, will be preferable to an 
alliance, by constraint, among nominal friends but real enemies.*' 
Tliey argue, at length, against the claims of the General Gov- 
ernment upon the militia of the States, and justify Massachusetts 
and Connecticut in refusing to place the militia in the regular 
army and under United States officers. They complain that 
the " Constitutional Compact," as they term the Constitution, 
has been extensively violated by the General Government, and 
that so many abuses have been practised, under color of its au- 
thority, that the time for change is believed to be at hand. 
They declare that " acts of Congress in violation of the Consti- 
tution arc aljsoJutely voidy And, as the Governors of Massa- 
chusetts and Connecticut liad refused to jjlacc the militia of 
those States in the regular army, and under the officers of the 
General Government, they propose that a portion of the na- 
tional tax, raised by the State, should be paid into its treasury, 
to be used for its defence, for which the General Government 
liad neglected to provide, in the case of those States. They 
declare that they are " solicitous for the continuance of the 
Union as well as the sovereignty of the States." 



CONTEMPOEAlfEOUS VIEWS OF NORTHEKX MEN, GT 

The first amendment proposed, namely, to take from tlie 
South the representation of slaves, was designed to lessen the 
political power of the Sonth, The object of the second amend- 
ment proposed was substantially the same ; or, in the language 
of Harrison Gray Otis, " the object of the amendment was to 
diminish what the decision of the Missouri question is calculated 
to increase — the representation of slaves." This referred to the 
admission of Louisiana. 

The Legislatures of Massachusetts and Connecticut, on re- 
ceiving the report of the Hartford Convention, sent commission- 
ers to "Washington ; the former, Harrison Gray Otis, Thomas 
H, Perkins, and William Sullivan ; the latter, Xatuaniel 
Terry and Calvin Goddard. 



contemporaneous views of northern MEN. 

JOHN LOWELL. 

Li an ably-reasoned pamphlet, written by John Lowell, of 
Massachusetts, and published in 1812, the writer asked : " Is 
there no Constitutional right in the executive, judiciary, and 
people of the several States, to judge whether the militia are, 
or are not, Constitutionally called into service ? Li whom, from 
the very nature of the limitation in the Constitution, reposes 
the ultimate right to judge whether either of the three cases, (to 
execute the laws of the Union ; suppress insurrections ; and 
repel invasion,) provided by the Constitution, does exist I 

" We answer, generally in the constituent, not in the dele- 
gate ; in the master, not in the servant ; idtimatelt/ in the peo- 
ple, (of the several States ;) principallij from the necessity of 
the case in the commanders-in-chief of the several States. The 
very idea of limitation excludes the possibility that the delegate 
should be the judge. If he were, his powers would be limited 
only by his own judgment, or, in other words, by his own arbi- 
trary will, which is no limitation at all." Tlie General Govern- 
ment is regarded here as the delegate,, and the people of the sev- 
eral States as the constituent,, acting by their constituted au- 
thorities as Governors, Judges, or Legislatures. We have the 
distinct declaration of the doctrine of State rights, from one of 



68 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEKSY. 

the ablest and best men of the times. If parried to its logical 
results it comes fully up to the Virginia resolutions of 1798, 
fully up to the teachings of Jefferson and Madison. 

GOCTEBNECR MOKniS. 

Goo'ERNEUR Morris was the veiy man in the Constitutional 
Convention who revised the language of the Constitution before 
its final adoption by that body, and must therefore have un- 
derstood what was its meaning and its bearings and the nature 
of the compact, and who were the parties to it. lie declared 
that it was a compact between the States, and not a compact 
between individuals scattered over the whole Union. These 
are his words : " That the Constitution was a compact, not be- 
tween solitary individuals, but between political societies, the 
people, not of America, but of the United States — each (State) 
enjoying sovereign power, and of course equal rights." Thus it 
differs from a State Constitution, which is a compact, so far as 
it can be called a compact, between individuals. It is a corn- 
fact between sovereignties. 

" ISTew England will, I trust, continue true to herself. Tlie 
appropriate course, pertinaciously pursued, must open the eyes 
even of the wilfully blind. You will unite with Massachusetts, 
and Kew York must connect herself, whether she will or no, 
with New England. The question of boundary to be solved, 
therefore, is the Delaware, Susquehanna, or Potomac." — Letter 
of Gowverneur Morris to Lewis Stxirejis^ Connecticut^ Nov. 1, 
1814. 

" I supposed, also, that to such as would charge you with 
meditating a breach of the Union, you would calmly reply : 
' The Union is already broken by this Administration. Should 
we now rely upon it, we should forfeit all claim to common 
sense.' " — Ldeni^ to LLarrison Gray Otis, JS^ov. 8, 1811. 

Having in the first extract stated what is the nature of the 
Constitutional Compact, and who are the parties to it, namely, 
the States, he then, in the next two, shows in what way the 
meditated separation of the States can be justified, and where 
might be the line of separation. 

John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, July, 1813, 
says : " The ^Northern States are now retaliating upon the 



DE wi'rr CLiNTox. 69 

Southern States, their conduct from 1797 to ISOO." He al- 
ludes to the opposition to his own administration by the South- 
ern States, especially by Virginia and Kentucky. 

DE TTITT CLINTON'. 

"The opposition, now excited, is not an ordinary oj^position. 
It does not merely aim a blow at a rival party. Nor is it con- 
fined to the destruction of an individual. It takes a more 
daring and adventurous attitude. It bids defiance to our laws, 
and threatens the dissolution of the Union. It is, ])erhaps, 
known to but few, that the project of the dismemberment of 
this country is not a novel plan growing out of recent measures 
of the Government, as has been pretended. It has been cher- 
ished by a number of individuals for a series of years ; and a 
few months before the death of a distinguished citizen, whose 
death so strongly excited the public sensibility, it was proposed 
to him to enlist his great talents in the formation of this nefarious 
scheme ; and, to his honor be it spokeu, it was repelled by him 
with disdain. Some of the newspapers of New England have, 
at various times, inculcated the treasonable doctrines in elab- 
orate essays, and the match appears to be now lighted, to pro- 
duce an explosion, which will overwhelm us with all the evils 
of civil war. 

" Look at the storm that is gathering in the cast ; its clouds arc 
black, heavy, and portentous. Look at the resolves of several 
of the towns, and even of the capital of Massachusetts. Observe 
the disorganizing, Jacobinical, seditious, and traitorous spirit 
which pervades them. The Legislatures of the several States 
arc incited to array themselves against the General Govern- 
ment. The very men who a few years since were the strenuous 
advocates for putting down the State Governments, for a strong 
National Government, that would maintain the union of the 
States ; for an energetic, absorbing National Government, that 
would control and regulate the centrifuo;al force of the local 
Government, these men are now warm partisans of a State su- 
premacy, the devoted friends of the State Legislatures.'' — Si)eech 
of De Witt Clinton, in Senate of New YorT^. 

John Quincy Adams fully sustains the declarations of Mr. 
Clinton, and refers to the " distinguished citizen," who, it was 



70 Till': SECTIOXAL CONTROVERSY. 

hoped, would lead the armies of the North, in a possible con- 
test with the Federal Government, and who was no other than 
Alexander Hamilton. 

The sentiments of disunion were in existence at the Xorth 
at an early period, certainly as early as 1796, not long after the 
ratification of Jay's treaty was opposed by Mr. Madison, Mr. 
Giles, and other leading men of the South, and just before the 
election of Mr. Adams, who was destined to meet with oppo- 
sition to his election from the Southern States, and then with 
embarrassments during his administration, and finally with de- 
feat when candidate a second time. 

The following is an extract from a very able series of papers, 
signed rELHA:^!, and published in the Connecticut Courcuit, in 
Hartford, 1796 : 

"I shall, in the future papers, consider some of the great 
events which ivill lead to a separation of the United States / 
show the importance of retaining their present Constitution, 
even at the expense of a separation ; endeavor to prove the re- 
sponsibility of a Union for a long period in future, both from the 
moralAud political habits of the citizens of the Northern States ; 
and finally, examine carefully to see whether we have not al- 
ready ajyproached to the era when they must he divided.''^ 

These sentiments gathered strength during Mr. Jefferson's 
administration, from the purchase of Louisiana and the restric- 
tions upon commerce, until, in 1809, they became so well known, 
that an agent, John Henry, was sent by the Governor-general 
of Canada, Sir James Craig, into New England, in reference to 
a co-operation with England, and a union with Canada. These 
sentiments still gathered strength during Mr. Madison's admin- 
istration, until they culminated in the appointment of the Hart- 
ford Convention, and brought the Eastern States to the very 
verge of disunion. For this the General Government was held 
responsible. " If, by your violence and oppression, you drive 
off New England from the Confederacy, you must answer for 
it. And you have already driven them to the very brink. 
One step more, and the union of these States is severed." — Fed- 
eral Itejpidjlican. 

Tliis was a matter of general notoriety throughout the coun- 
try. Tlie following is an extract from a letter addressed to 



REMAEKS. 71 

Elbeidge Geeet, of Massachusetts, dated June 11, 1812, from 
Mr. Jeffeeson : 

" What then does this English faction with you mean ? 
Their newspapers say, rebellion, and that they will not continue 
united with us, unless we will permit them to govern the ma- 
jority. * * They count on British aid. But what can that 
avail them by land ? They would separate from their friends, 
who alone furnish employment for their navigation, to unite 
with their only rival, for that employment. * '^'' But I trust 
that such perverseness will not be that of the honest and well- 
meaning mass of the Federalists of Massachusetts ; and that 
when the question of separation and rebellion shall bo nakedly 
proposed to them, the Goees and the Pickeeings will find their 
levees crowded with silk stocking gentry, but no yeomanry ; an 
army of officers, but no soldiers." 

eemaeks. 

1. When the North was the dominant section in the General 
Government, Southern statesmen placed themselves on the re- 
served rights of the States, to resist the encroachments of federal 
power, under the first two Presidents ; as in the case of the 
assumption of State debts, and of the charter of the United 
States Bank ; and of the alien and sedition laws. 

When the South became the dominant section in the Gen- 
eral Government, the ISTorthern States placed themselves on the 
same reserved rights of the States, to resist the encroachments 
of federal power, under Presidents Jeffeeson and Madison ; as 
in the case of the purchase of Louisiana, and of the restrictions 
upon commerce ; and of the requisition to place the militia of 
the States under federal ofiicers. 

In each case the dominant party was opposed to the doc- 
trines of State rights. The l^orth was opposed to the Virginia 
and the Kentncky resolutions. The South was opposed to the 
doctrines of the Hartford Convention. 

2. The doctrine of State rights was asserted in 1798 by Yir- 
ginia, and in 1814 by Massachusetts, in a manner corresponding 
with the character of the people of the two States. In a letter, 
dated Dec. 18, 1814, addressed to James Lloyd, of Massachu- 



72 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

setts, JoiiN Randolph writes : " A Virginia and a Xew England 
Republican are about as much alike as an English whig and a 
French democrat." And yet the doctrines of State rights, as 
enunciated by Northern statesmen and by Southern statesmen, 
are substantially the same. Tlie Northern view and the South- 
ern in these cases were nearly the same. 

a. That the Constitution is federal, namely, a compact be- 
tween the States, and M'as made by the States, namely by the 
people of each State, acting for the State, and not by solitary 
individuals, each acting for himself. — See Gouverneur Morris's 
Declaration, Dr. S. Johnson'' 8 Iteiiiarhs, &c. 

h. That the Constitution was formed for the States, and for 
individuals only as a citizen of a State. 

c. That all powers not distinctly given to the General Gov- 
ernment, are reserved to the States; and that it is just as im- 
portant that the reserved powers should remain unimpaired, as 
that the granted powers should be unimpaired. 

d. Tliat each State, as a party to the compact, must judge 
as to the powers granted, and of any violation of the compact. 

e. That if a dispute should arise between a State and its co- 
States, in respect to what powers are granted and what i)Owers 
are reserved, an amendment to the compact by a Convention of 
the States, or otherwise, must settle the doubtful point. 

f. That if the compact be broken by the States '* on one side, 
it is broken on all sides." 

3. Violent resistance was, during the AYar of 1812, threatened 
against some of the requisitions of the Federal Government. 
Governor Tkumbull of Connecticut, took the ground, that on 
great emergencies, when the National Legislature had been 
led to overstep its Constitutional powers, it became the right 
and the duty of the State Legislatures '' to interpose their pro- 
tecting shield between the rights and the liberties of the people, 
and the assumed power of the General Government." Gov- 
ernor Chittenden, of Vermont, had issued his proclamation, re- 
calling the Vermont militia. And when a member of Congress 
proposed to instruct the Attorney-general to prosecute Governor 
Chittenden, " Mr. Otis laid on the table of the Massachusetts 
senate a resolve expressive of the duty and readiness of Massa- 
chusetts, to aid with her whole power the Governor of Ver- 



KEMAEKS. 73 

mout, and the people of any other State, in support of Consti- 
tutional rights, by -whomsoever infringed." By a legislative 
act, the authorities of the United States were forbid " to use 
the gaols in Massachusetts for the confinement of prisoners com- 
mitted by any other than judicial authority ; and the gaolers 
were directed, at the end of thirty days, to discharge all British 
officers, prisoners of war, committed to them for close confine- 
ment." 

A Bill for the enlistment of minors having passed Congress, 
the Legislatures of Connecticut and Massachusetts " proceeded 
to pass an act requiring the State judges to discharge, on habeas 
corpus, all minors enlisted without the consent of their parents or 
guardians, and subjecting to fine and imprisonment any per- 
sons concerned in any such enlistment, who should remove any 
minor out of the State, so that he could not be then discharged." 

■i. Mr. Madisox was greatly disturbed and annoyed by the 
meeting of the Hartford Convention, and by the necessity of 
meeting the commissioners appointed by Massachusetts and Con- 
necticut. But the tidings of peace came, just as they arrived 
in Washington, and relieved him from the necessity of receiv- 
ing them in the character of commissioners, and of entering 
into negotiations with them on the subject of their mission ; but 
placed them in a very awkward position. 

On the arrival of the intelligence that a treaty of peace had 
been signed, the people of "Washington hastened to the Presi- 
dent's levee, in the fulness of their joy. One, who was present, 
told me, that the hilarity exceeded all common bounds ; that, 
not satisfied with congratulating pne another once, they would, 
many of them, repeat the congratulations, Mr. M^idisox acted 
as if a great load had been removed from his mind. Mrs. Mad- 
isox was more of a cpieen than ever. 

When the mirth was at the highest, the commissioners were 
announced. Immediately, from the shock, there was a uni- 
versal stillness, like that in a church. They were received by 
Mr. and Mrs. Madisox with all due courtesy ; but it was some 
minutes before the assembly relapsed into its former hilarity. 
and before the commissioners were restored to their natural 
dignity and self-possession. 

5. What course would have been taken in ]^ew England, if 



T4 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVLKSY. 

peace had not been declared, it is impossible to say. How far 
tlic General Government might have been disposed to comply 
with the proposals or demands of tlie Hartford Convention, it 
is impossible to say. But this mnch can be said, that the men 
who were concerned in this sectional movement, in tlic State 
1 Legislatures and the Convention, were men of the highest char- 
)acter for intelligence, virtue, and patriotism ; as also were those 
concerned in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions in 170S-'9. 
In each case they knew their rights, and knowing, they dared 
to maintain them. 

G. The reserved rights of the States need to be constantly 
kept before the minds of those who are called to act in the 
legislative, the 'executive, and the judicial departments of the 
General Government, lest they shonld lose their influence, and 
the granted powers become, in practice, too nnich enlarged. 
There is a strong centralizing tendency, arising from that love 
of power which is inherent in human nature, from a desire to 
carry out certain measures deemed useful, but which the Con- 
stitution does not authorize ; and especially from the great 
patronage of the Government, which it can use to induce men 
to support its usnrj)ation. 

7. The relations of the Federal Government to the State 
Governments are not well understood. The following are the 
remarks of Mr. Jeffekson : 

" With respect to our State and Federal Governments, I do 
not think that their relations are correctly understood by for- 
eigners. They generally suppose the former to be subordinate 
to the latter. But this is not the case. They are co-ordinate 
departments of one simple and integral whole. But you may 
ask, if the two departments should claim each the same subject 
of power, where is the common umpire to decide between them ? 
In cases of little importance and urgency, the prudence of both 
parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground ; but 
if it can neither be avoided, nor compro?nised, a Conveiitioji of 
ihe States must he called to ascrihe the doiibtful power to that 
department which they may think hest.^^ 

KossuTn, it is said, formed an exception to this general re- 
mark respecting foreigners ; for he understood at once the na- 
ture of the American Confederacy. " It is," said he, " a Ee- 
])ublic, composed of republics." 



EEMAEKS. 



75 



But the relations of the Federal Government to the State 
Governments are not well nnclerstood, even by the native-born 
citizens. The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions on the one 
hand, and on the other the doctrines taught in Massachusetts 
and Connecticut during the war, and, indeed, some years before 
that era, if carefully studied, will assist a citizen of the States to 
understand our double Government , and to learn what are the 
powers granted to the Federal Government, and what are the 
rights reserved to tlie States. 

8. While ISTew England was meditating the separation of the 
States in certain contingencies, the general feeling in that sec- 
tion was, that a peaceful separation ought to take place, if at 
all ; or, in the language of the Hartford Convention, that " a 
separation by mutual arrangement will be preferable to an al- 
liance by constraint among nominal friends, but real enemies." 
John Quincy Adajnis, in a speech delivered in the city of Kew 
York, in 1839, just fifty years after the Federal Constitution 
went into operation, expressed the same sentiments : 

" But the indissoluble link of union between the people of 
the several States in this Confederation is, after all, not in the 
right but in the heart. If the day should ever come — may 
heaven avert it ! — when the affections of the people in these 
States shall bo alienated from each other — when the fraternal 
feeling shall give way to cold indifference, or collisions of in- 
terest shall foster into hatred — the bonds of political association 
will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the 
magnetism of conciliated interests and friendly sympathies ; 
and/ar Jjettev ivill it he for the ])eople of the disunited States 
to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together 
by constraint. Tlien will be the time for reverting to the pre- 
cedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the 
Constitution, to form again a more perfect union by dissolving 
that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separate parts 
to be united by the law of political gravitation to the centre." 



CHAPTEE yn. 

ME. monkoe's administkation. 

Maech 4, 1817— March 4, 1825, 

The period of Mr. Monkoe's administration has been styled 
the " era of good feeling," The war had, with some reverses, 
been triumphantly sustained. Old sectional feuds had died 
out. The Federal party having ceased to exist, new political 
friendships had been formed. Mr. Clay had brought from 
abroad an admiration of some of the institutions of Great 
Britain. Some of the old difficulties with that nation had 
been settled. The manufactures of the North had, to some 
extent, been protected by the tariff law of 1816, passed partly 
by Southern votes. The commercial interests of the North had 
been favored by the establishment of the United States Bank ; 
the bill having been signed by a Southern President, who had 
been opposed to a bank. Business revived. Internal improve- 
ments were projected. Hopes of general prosperity were rife 
in the land. President Monkoe made a tour through the North- 
ern and Eastern States, and was everywhere received with demon- 
strations of cordiality and good will. And yet in his adminis- 
tration, a sectional contest arose of the most bitter and dangerous 
character, threatening at once the unity and peace of the country. 



EESTKICTION OF SLAVERY IX MISSOUKI. 

February 13, 1810. — The bill, enabling Missouri to form a 
State Government, was taken up in the House of Representa- 



KESTEICTION OF SLAVERY IN MISSOURI. 77 

lives ; tlie question being on the following amendment, moved 
by Mr. Tallmage of New York : 

" And provided^ Tliat the further introdnction of slavery or 
involuntary servitude be prohibited, except for the pimishment 
of crimes, whereof the party has been duly convicted ; and that 
all children born within the said State, after the admission 
thereof into the Union, shall be free at the ago of twenty-five 
years." 

Mr. Tayloe, of !N"ew York, in favor of the amendment, after 
speaking on the importance of the question, said there were two 
points at issue : 1. Has Congress the constitutional power to 
prohibit slavery as the condition of admission ; 2. If the power 
exists, is it wise to exercise it ? 

His arguments were drawn from that article in the Consti- 
tution, which declares that " the Congress shall have power to 
dispose of, and make all needful rules respecting the territory 
and other property belonging to the United States ; " from the 
fact that slavery is wrong, being contrary to the Declaration of 
Independence, which asserts " that all men are created equal ;" 
from the fact that slavery is incompatible with republican in- 
stitutions. 

Mr. P. P. BxVEBOUR, of Virginia, opposed the amendment, 
on the ground that the Congress has no constitutional power to 
impose the restriction ; that Congress has power to " admit new 
States into the Union." "The term State has a fixed and deter- 
minate meaning. It imports the existence of a political com- 
munity, free and independent, and entitled to exercise the rights 
of sovereignty, such as the original States enjoyed. Virginia 
has slaves ; Pennsylvania has no slaves, but she has power to 
have them ; ought not Missouri to have the same power in this 
respect that Pennsylvania has \ " Other gentlemen who engaged 
in the discussion took similar grounds. 

The amendment passed in the Committee of the "Whole, TO 
to 67. 

On the 16tli of February, the House proceeded to consider the 
restriction. After an able discussion, the amendment was passed 
by a vote of 87 to 76, on the first branch ; and by a vote of 82 
to 78, on the second branch. 

The Senate passed the bill to admit Missouri witJwut the re- 



78 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEESY. 

stHction^ March 2d, On the motion to concur with the Senate, 
the vote was 7G yeas, 78 nays. Thus the bill failed, the Houses 
having failed to agree. 

" Tliis," says Benton, in the " Debates in Congress," " was 
the end of the bill, and it left the Houses geogrcqyhlcaUy divided, 
and the same division extending itself, with electric speed, to 
the States. It was a period of deep apprehension, filling with 
dismay the hearts of the steadiest patriots. It would be nine 
months before Congress would sit again. The agitation, great 
as it was, was to become greater, and no one could foresee its 
bounds. Tlie movement to put the slavery restriction on Ar- 
kansas greatly aggravated the Missouri question, and seemed to 
menace the slave States with total exclusion from Louisiana." 

It was during the agitation and suspense of the public mind, 
that Mr. Madisox wrote a letter to Ivobekt "Walsu, dated Kov. 
27, 1819, just before the meeting of Congress, from which the 
following is an extract : " Parties, under some denomination or 
other, must always be expected in a free government like ours. 
When the individuals belonging to them are intermingled in 
every part of the whole country, they strengthen the union of 
the whole, while they divide every part. Should a state of 
parties arise, founded on geographical boundaries, and other 
physical and permanent distinctions which happen to coincide 
with them, what is then to control those great repulsive masses 
from awful shocks against each other ? " 

Tlie Southern States deeply felt, that by the action of tlie 
House, their constitutional rights had been denied to them, and 
that language had been used and arguments employed, derog- 
atory to their character. It was in reference to this state of 
things, and while the country was in a blaze of excitement, that 
Mr. Jefferson wrote, that the notes of alarm fell upon his ear 
like a " fire bell in the night." 

" Tlie Missouri question," he says, " is the most portentous 
one that ever threatened our Union. In the gloomiest moments 
of the Eevolutionary "War, I never had any apprehensions equal 
to what I feel from this source." 

In the early part of the next session in Congress, Jan. 3, 
1820, it was proposed in the Senate to couple Missouri with 
Maine in one bill, the latter having applied to be admitted as 



KESTEICTION OF SLAVERY IN MISSOUEI. 79 

a State into tlie Union. To this there was gi-cat opposition on 
the part of ^Northern members, and very extensive discussion, 
in which the evils of slavery formed an important part of the 
staple of a portion of the speeches. To show the absurdity of 
coupling them together, Mr. Robekts of Pennsylvania said : 
" What do we find in the front of the Constitution of Maine ? 
Article I. Section 1 : 'All men are born free and equal, and arc 
free to worship God in their own way.' Here is a substantial 
pledge to the good old faith. To her we may say, Come, sister, 
talvc your place in this constellation : the lustre of 3'our counte- 
nance will brighten the American galaxy. But do not urge us 
to admit Missouri under a pretence of congeniality — with the 
visage of a savage, deformed with the hideous cicatrices of bar- 
baric pride, with her features marred as if the finger of Lucifer 
had been drawn across it." 

Mr. PiNKNET, of Maryland, in his speech on the other side, 
said : " New States may be admitted by Congress into this 
Union. What is that Union ? a confederation of States equal 
in sovereignty, capable of every thing which the Constitution 
does not forbid, or authorize Congress to forbid. It is an equal 
union between parties equally sovereign. * '•'' By acceding to 
it, the new State is placed on the same footing as the original 
States. * * If it comes in shorn of its beams, crippled and 
disparaged beyond the original States — it is not into the original 
Union that it comes, for it is a different sort of union. The first 
was union inter fares / this is a union between disparates, be- 
tween giants and a dwarf, between power and feebleness, be- 
tween full-proportioned sovereignties and a miserable image of 
power, a thing which that very union has shrunk and shrivelled 
from its past size, instead of preserving it in its true dimen- 
sions." 

In the Senate, the vote for uniting the two bills was 23 in 
favor, and 21 against ; Feb. 16, 1820. 

At this stage of the business, it became evident, that though 
the Senate V\'as willing to receive Missouri upon an equal foot- 
ing with the other States, the House would j^ersist in excluding 
her, unless she would consent to come into the Union with im- 
paired sovereignty, and unable to determine what some of her 
internal institutions should be. 

What was to be done ? What was done ? 



80 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOYEESY. 



THE COirPKOMISE. 



Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, j)roposed in tlio Senate to amend the 
bill, l)j striking out the restrictive clause, to pass the bill for the 
admission of Maine, and to prohibit slavery in all of the terri- 
tory north of 36° 30', that the Northern members might in this 
way allow Missouri to come into the Union without restriction, 
upon the same footing as the other States. His proposal was 
acceded to, and the amendment was passed in the Senate, March 
2, 1S20, by a vote of 22 in favor, and 15 against it. In the 
House the amendment passed by a vote of 13-1 in favor, and 42 
against it. Still Missouri did not obtain admittance into the 
Union. 

At the next session of Congress, for the third time Missouri 
presented herself for admission into the Union. Maine had 
been admitted, and her representatives were on the floor of 
Congress. Slavery was prohibited north of 36° 30'. But strange 
to say, the compromise was not can'ied out by the Northern 
members, with some honorable exceptions ! 

On the question in the House, Shall Missouri be admitted on 
the compromise of 1820? the vote stood, Feb. 13, 1821, 88 
against admission, 67 in favor of admission. From Maine, 5 
against, 2 in favor ; from New Hampshire 6, all against ; from 
Massachusetts 13, all against ; from Kliodc Island 1, and in 
favor ; from Connecticut, 6 against, and 1 in favor ; from Yer- 
mont 6, all against ; from New York, 17 against, and 7 in 
favor ; from New Jersey, 1 against, and 3 in favor ; from Penn- 
sylvania, 22 against, and 1 in favor ; from Ohio 6, all against ; 
from Indiana 1, and against ; from Illinois 1, and against. 

Thus the North rejected the compromise which had been 
made March 2, 1820, nearly a year before. 

AVcre the Northern States faithful to the compromise? 
Candor must admit, as the above votes show, that they were 
not. They had got their share, and it was the lion's share. 
Maine had been admitted into the Union. Slavery had been 
prohibited by a stretch of power, north of 36° 30', upon the com- 
promise by which Missouri was to be admitted, but they still 
refused to admit her into the Union. One of their number, Mr. 



THE COilPEOIVnSE. 81 

Clakk of New York, who had voted against the compromise, 
did saj : " I consider myself bound by the 'pledge. I cannot 
for a moment consent, as a member of this Honse, to observe a 
punio faith even vrith Missouri." Others did not faithfully 
keep good faith, but punic faith. 

After the Northern members had thus refused to carry out 
the compromise, Mr. Bkown, of Kentucky, proposed to repeal 
the act prohibiting slavery north of 36° 30'. But they would not 
consent ; they would keep the consideration, but would not 
carry out the compromise by which they obtained the con- 
sideration. 

The Southern States regarded the compromise of 1820 as an 
agreement between their members and the Northern members, 
and they looked to the latter, with upbraiding or imploring eyes, 
to carry it out by the admission of Missouri. Yet still the 
latter refused. Proofs on both points are abundant. 

Hear Mr. Chaeles Pdvckney's testimony. He was, it will 
be recollected, a leading member of the Convention that formed 
the Constitution, and was at the present time a member of Con- 
gress from South Carolina who voted for the compromise. " I 
feel authorized to express this fear (of the dissolution of the 
Union) by the fact, that gentlemen in opposition now throw off 
the veil, and expressly declare that it is their intention to leave, 
if possible, this question to the next Congress, to leave to them, if 
possible, unfettered by any act of ours, the power to decide how 
far the true interests of the Union may then make it necessary 
to produce anew, and struggle for the imposition of the restric- 
tion on slavery, which has, during the three last sessions, shaken 
the Union to the very foundations. Tliey openly avow that they 
do not consider themselves bound by the compact of the last 
year^ confining the restriction to the north of 36° 30', but aver 
if they have the strength to do so, their intention to leave the 
Qiext Congress free to decide it as they please." 

Months had passed away, between the time when the com- 
promise bill had been passed and the succeeding session, and 
yet at this session the North still refused to admit Missom-i ! 

What was the real motive for this apjparently treacherous 
conduct on the part of the North ? It wees the desire to retain 
political power. This was the temptation to the political sin 



82 THE SECTIONAL COXTEOYERSY. 

of still reusing to admit Missouri upon the same footing as tlie 
original States. 

AYliat was the pretext for this delay and this shirking the 
responsibility ? It was that Missouri had, in her constitution, 
made proYision to exclude free negroes and mulattoes from the 
State. It M'as but a pretext, because other States liaYC been ad- 
mitted without resistance or objection, in whose constitutions 
there were similar proYisions ; and Massachusetts had placed 
similar proYisions on her statute book as early as ITSS, just 
after the ratification of the Constitution. 

Missouri was finally admitted February 2S, 1S21. Petitions 
for the admission of Missouri were presented March IG, 1818. 
A bill was introduced into the House to enable Missouri to 
foiTU a State goYcrnment, February 13, 1819. The restriction 
was moYcd February 17, 1819. It thus took more than three 
years from the first-mentioned date, and more than two years 
from the second date, to procure the admission of Missom*i. 
She was finally admitted upon a Yote of 8G in faYor and 82 
against. Of the Northern States, New Hampshire cast no vote 
in faYor ; Massachusetts, two Yotes ; Connecticut, one vote ; 
Vermont, no vote in favor ; New York, seven ; New Jersey, 
two ; Pennsylvania, four votes. Not a single Northern State 
gave its vote in favor of the admission of Missouri. Of the 
Northern votes cast in favor of the admission of Missouri upon 
the final vote, some were due to the sense of constitutional right 
which Missouri had to admission upon the original footing of 
other States, expressed in the early part of the debates ; others 
were due to the compromise, to which they remained faithful ; 
others still were due to political considerations of a patriotic or 
party character, 

" For a Y'liile," says Benton, in his " Thirty Years' Yiew," 
" this formidable Missouri question threatened the total over- 
throw of all political parties or principles, and the substitution 
of geographical parties, discriminated by a slave line, and of 
course destroying the first and proper action of the Federal 
Government, and leading eventually to a separation of the 
States. It was a Federal movement, accruing to the benefit of 
that party, and at first was overwhelming, sweeping all the 
Northern Democracy into its current, and giving the supremacy 



KEMAEKS. 83 

to its adversaries. When this effect was perceived, the North- 
ern Democracy became alarmed, and only wanted a turn in the 
popular feeling at home, to take the first opportunity to get rid 
of the question by admitting the State, and reestablishing party 
lines upon the basis of political principles. This was the de- 
cided feeling when I arrived at "Washington, and many of the 
old JSTorthern Democracy took early opportunity to declare 
themselves to me to that effect, and showed that they were 
ready to vote for the admission of the State in any form that 
would answer the purpose, and save themselves from going so 
far as to lose their own State, and give the ascendant to their 
political adversaries." 

But patriotic considerations also operated upon another class 
of minds to induce them to vote for the admission of Missouri. 
The whole country was agitated and threatened with disunion. 
B}' voting to admit, the agitation would cease, and the danger 
of disunion be removed. 

Members of Congress from !N^orthern States, who voted for the 
admission of Missouri, were influenced : 1, by a regard for the 
constitutional right of Missouri to come into the Union upon 
the same footing as the original States ; or 2, by a regard for 
the Democratic party ; or 3, by a regard for the peace and 
union of the country ; or 4, by a regard to the compromise. 
There was at least one, Mr. Clakk, of New York, who was in- 
fluenced by the last consideration, though he did not vote for 
the compromise. How many are to be classed with him it is 
difficult to say. 

It is remarkable that every man belonging to New England, 
in the Lower House, who voted to admit Missouri, was ostra- 
cized from the confidence of the public, by the intolerant or un- 
forgiving spirit which prevailed. It Avas said of Mr. Shaw, one 
of them, that he was killed by the negroes, and that Mr. Dwight, 
of the same State, was killed by the Indians, (in the Georgia case.) 

I have seen no proof that New England was ever reconciled 
to the admission of Missour* 

EEMAEKS. 

1. Mr. Monroe was the last of the Virginia dynasty. When 
he went out of office in 1825, the Government under the Con- 



84 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEEST. 

stitution had been in operation thirty-six years, during which 
period a Virginian had been at the head of the Government 
thirty-two years. Washington, Jeffekson, Madison, and Mon- 
EOE, were each worthy of the place. But there grew up, natu- 
rally, in the breasts of Northern men, a bitter jealousy of the 
South, and especially of Virginia, whose sons had fo-r so long a 
time occupied the Presidential chair. These men had been 
elected to office by controlling Southern votes, aided, indeed, in 
each case, by votes of the ISTorth, and in one case, by all the 
electoral votes of the North. At six successive elections, North- 
ern men had brought forward their Presidential candidates only 
to suffer defeat and mortification. As a consequence, there 
grew up a strong desire to lessen the influence of the slavehold- 
^ ing States, and to prevent the increase of their number. Tlie 
Northern States were under the influence of a great political 
temptation to do a great political wrong to Missouri and the 
slave States. 

The peo2)le of the North, generally, were prepared to enter 
into the feelings of their j)olitical leaders, in opposing the in- 
crease of the political power of the South ; and, in their desire 
to extend to all men the enjoyment of their natural rights, they 
were ready to overlook the constitutional rights of Missouri. 

2. In order to show the true state of the case, in the estima- 
tion of enlightened statesmen, I quote the following extract 
from a speech of John Quincy Adams, delivered in Congress, 
1835, in favor of the admission of Arkansas, whose constitution 
was ofi'ered for acceptance ; it being of the same character as 
that of Missouri, both of them j)ermitting slavery : " Mr. Chair- 
man, — I cannot, consistently with my sense of obligation as a 
citizen of the United States, and bound by oath to support their 
Constitution, I cannot object to the admission of Arkansas into 
the Union as a slave State. I cannot propose or agree to make 
it a condition of her admission into the Union, that a conven- 
tion of her people shall expunge this article from the Constitu- 
tion. She is entitled to admission us a slave State." The argu- 
ment against the admission of Missouri, from the Declaration 
of Independence, that " all men are created equal," is irrelevant. 
Tlie argmnent from the power of Congress to make " needful 
rules and regulations in respect to the Territory and other prop- 



KEMAEKS. 85 

erty," is irrelevant, for this "power" relates to property. The 
argument from the clause, " New States may be admitted by 
Congress into the Union," is all on the other side, from the very 
meaning of the terms. The House, therefore, was wrong in im- 
posing the restriction as the condition of admitting Missouri, 
and the Senate was right in voting to admit her without this 
restriction. Thus much in regard to kestriction. 

8. But did the North act honorably in respect to the com- 
PEOMisE ? This compromise was proposed by a Northern man, 
and was accepted by Southern men and by Northern men ; and 
yet it was not adhered to by Northern men, after the North 
had received the advantage of admitting the State of Maine, 
and after slavery had been prohibited north of 36° 30'. When 
Missouri a third time Iiad presented herself for admittance with 
this compact or compromise in her hand, she was again rejected 
by a vote of 87 against admission, and 67 in favor of it. 

4. The difference between the " restriction " and the " com- 
promise," has not been well understood. " No words," says 
Beistton, in his " Debates," " have been more confounded than 
those of the restriction and the compromise ; so much so, that 
some of the eminent speakers of the time have had their speeches 
against the restriction quoted as being against the compromise, 
of which they were zealous advocates. Though confounded, no 
two measures could be more opposite in their nature and effects. 
The restriction was to operate on a State, the compromise on a 
Territory. Tlie restriction was to prevent the State of Missouri 
from admitting slavery ; the compromise was to admit slavery 
there, and to divide the rest of Louisiana about equally between 
free and slave soil. Tlie restriction came from the North, the 
compromise from the South. The restriction raised the storm, 
the compromise allayed it." 

5. One of the most unfortunate circumstances attending the 
debate was, that some of the Northern members used intem^^er- 
atc and insulting language towards the Southern men and South- 
ern institutions, which were not soon forgotten. Instead of dis- 
cussing constitutional questions, by referring to the Constitution 
as the sole ground of argument, they uttered the language of in- 
vective and sarcasm against slavery itself, if not against slave- 
holders. Such men as Kueus King and Hakkison Gkay Otis 



86 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEEST. 

were not guilty of these improprieties. But there were others 
who drew from tlieir quiver arrows envenomed by hatred, and 
sent them, at random or with deliberate aim, to rankle in the 
breast of the South. And the effect of their speeches upon the 
Xorth was to kindle up a bitter and intolerant spirit. Tlie 
present writer remembers that, in a most respectable Xorthern 
city, during the discussions respecting the admittance of Missouri, 
.1 small company of boys were employed to carry through the 
streets, on a flag, the picture of a chained African, uttering the 
words, " Am I not a man and a brother ? " and also another, 
in which the " noble Yirginians " were represented, with up- 
raised whips, driving the negroes at their field work. In this 
way, but more especially by speeches and inflammatory articles 
in newspapers, the jjassions of the people of the North were 
kindled into indignation. 

G. To men of this generation it may seem strange, that 
worthy men in both Houses should refuse to vote for the admis- 
sion of Missouri upon the gi'oimds alleged, and for the reasons 
given. But it should be borne in mind that the real reason was 
the fear of increasing the political power of the South. Under 
the influence of this fear, on the part of demagogues in Con- 
gress, the evils of slavery were magnified, and the constitutional 
powers of Congress were distorted, until the members, in 
given cases, felt that they should commit political suicide by 
votinix for the measure of admittino; Missouri. It was easier to 
excite the masses than it was to calm the excitement. In some 
cases they did commit political suicide. Tliey voted for the 
measure, but theh' constituents never forgave them. Some of 
the State Legislatm-es passed resolutions against the measure, 
which might operate to prevent the members from those States 
from acting in the premises, according to their own judgment. 

Y. Did Congress act Constitutionally in 2-)roliibiting slavery 
north of 3G° 30' ? This question did not come up in a very diir 
tinct form for discussion, though there were those, Mr. BAxooLrn 
among them, who refused to vote for the compromise on tliat 
ground. Ilis penetrating mind saw the constitutional objec- 
tion. But the Senate and the House were in an awkward rela- 
tion to each other, each insisting on its own bill. Missouri, 
with great reason, complained of the treatment she had experi- 



KEMAKKS. 87 

eiiced. Maine was clamoring for admission. The whole coun- 
try was agitated. The power of Congress was greater over 
Territory than over States. The ordinance of 178T, which ex- 
cluded slavery, was remembered, while the difference between 
the two cases was not insisted on. Congress was tired of the 
subject. Some thought, perhaps, that it was best to do a great 
right and a little wrong. The bill, as amended, came from the 
Senate without very much discussion in that body, into the 
House, March 2, 1820, and was passed' the same day. 

The subject has since been more carefully examined, and 
the conviction has been produced upon some of the ablest states- 
men of the land, that the Constitution gives no power to inter- 
dict slavery in the Territories. 

The restriction of slavery in Missouri as the condition of 
admission into the Union, with the delay, after the restriction 
was struck out, of the bill, on the ground of an invidious dis- 
tinction between the States, opened a fountain of sectional feel- 
ing, the bitter waters from which at the time deluged the land. 
These waters from that fountain have not yet ceased to flow. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

JOITN QTJINCY ADAMs' ADMINISTRATIO^'. 
March 4, 1825— March 4, 1829, 

Me. Adams was elected by tlie House of Bepresentatlves 
over General Jackson, there having been a failure to make an 
election of President by the electoral votes. The friends of 
Mr. Clay united with the friends of Mr. Ada^is in placing the 
latter in the Presidential chair ; though General Jackson had 
the largest vote of the electors. 

Mr. Adams had large experience and undoubted honesty as 
a statesman, but was inclined to a broad interpretation of the 
Constitution ; and, like Mr, Clay, was in favor of a high tariff, 
as was supposed. It was very natural that Mr, Clay should 
unite his political fortunes with him, in preference to General 
Jackson ; but by doing so, they both lost some share of the 
public confidence, especially from the circumstance that Mr, 
Clay accepted of the office of Secretary of State under him. 
Sectional feelings were strongly excited during the Presidential 
contest, and especially during the administration of Mr, Adams. 
The protective policy, sanctioned by the tariff act of 1824, en- 
tered now, for the first time, into a Presidential contest. 

THE TARIFF OF 1828. 

Previous to the year 1816, protection to American manu- 
factures had been incidental. The Constitution gave Congress 
power to raise a revenue, but not to encoui'age one branch of 



THE TAEIFF OF 1828. 89 

industry to the injury of another. As the powers granted by 
that instrument do not allow Congress to protect manufactures 
directly, they were forced to depend on such an amount of protec- 
tion as they could incidentally receive from the imposition of 
duties for revenue. By a judicious discrimination as to what 
imported articles should be dutied, and what should be the duty 
on each class, the American manufacturer had the advantage 
of the foreign manufacturer of the same class of articles, by the 
amount of the duty paid added to the expense of transportation ; 
while the consumer could not complain, because what he paid 
additional to what he would have to pay for the same articles if 
imported duty free, he paid only as revenue for the support of 
the Government. 

But in 181G a new policy Avas adopted. It had been found 
by the experience of the war, that the country had suffered 
great inconvenience from depending on foreign manufactures. 
Accordingly, patriotism was appealed to for the support of do- 
mestic manufactures, which would render the country more in- 
dependent of foreign nations. Besides, a large amount of capi- 
tal had been embarked in manufactures, which, at peace prices, 
with foreign competition, could not be sustained. The national 
debt must be paid. In this state of things the tariff law of 1816 
was enacted, the opposition to it being based chiefly on the 
ground that it would produce an injurious effect upon com- 
merce. 

In 1821: a bill was passed, giving still further j^rotection to 
manufactures. It was in support of this bill that Mr. Clay 
made his celebrated speech in favor of what, by a strange mis- 
nomer, he called " an American system." It was the privilege 
of the present writer to hear that speech, and, indeed, all the 
speeches of importance delivered that session on the subject of 
the tariff. In a very taking and persuasive statement of the 
present distress of the country and the necessity of a change of 
policy in favor of manufactures, he presented the general and 
special arguments in favor of a protective tariff. He was aided 
by manufacturers or their agents, who were present to furnish 
him, and others imited with him, with facts which would 
operate on the minds of members to induce them to favor do- 
mestic industry employed in the manufacturing business. A 



90 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEESY. 

political party, if not formed already, vras about to bo formed 
on tliis issue among others. Mr. Clay -was still regarded as a 
democrat ; and such was his patriotism and his eminent per- 
sonal qualities, such were his eloquence and powers of reasoning, 
that he had great influence in carrying the bill through the 
House, notwithstanding the vigorous opposition against it. 

Mr. Webstee was opposed to the bill, and, in his reply, was 
more than equal to Mr. Clay in his arguments, and hardly in- 
ferior in eloquence. Massachusetts went against the bill with 
the South ; but it was earned by a vote in the House of 107 to 
102, and in the Senate of 25 to 20. "With other distinguished 
men who were opposed to the " new policy," inaugurated by 
Mr. Clay, and so characterized by him, was Rurus King. 

Mr. Clay saw clearly that it would be opposed by Southern 
members, because it sacrificed the interests of their constituents 
for the benefit of other States. He spoke of the importance of 
preserving the harmony of the \vhole Union. He remarked 
that " if the North, the East, and the West formed an independ- . 
ent State, unassociated with the South, can there be a doubt 
that the restrictive system would be carried to the point of pro- 
hibition of every foreign fabric of which they produce the raw 
material, and which they could manufacture ? Such would be 
their policy if alone ; but they are fortunately connected with 
the South, which l)elievcs its interest to require a free admission 
of foreign manufacture." Mr. Clay evidently intended to act 
in the most conciliatory manner towards the South ; but he 
also was determined to carry the measure. 

Mr. McDuTTiE, in one of his speeches, said " that the honor- 
able Speaker had remarked that, in the legislation of this coun- 
try, the most scrupulous regard should be had to the general 
harmony. But he put it to the Speaker whether it was not the 
introduction of such a bill which was likely to disturb that har- 
mony, rather than its discussion." He went on to show that it 
is a question distinctly arraying against each other the two dif- 
ferent sections of the Confederacy. All the arguments by which 
the proposed duty is supported have been, therefore, and neces- 
sarily must be, of a sectional character. " "When gentlemen are 
attempting by legislation to aftect the interests of the two sec- 
tions of the Union relatively to each other, how can they throw 



THE TARIFF OF 1828. 01 

upon lis the responsibility of that feeling, -^ivhicli the discussion 
may excite ? " 

Mr. "Webster replied to Mr. Clay on another point, in a 
manner equally triumphant. " On the general question, sir, 
allow me to ask if the doctrine of j)roliibition, as a general doc- 
trine, be not preposterous ? Suppose all nations to act upon it, 
they would be prosperous then precisely in proportion as they 
abolished intercourse with one another. The less of mutual 
commerce they had the better, upon this hypothesis. Protec- 
tion and encouragement may be, and are, doubtless, sometimes 
wise and beneficial, if kept within proper limits ; but when car- 
ried to an extravagant height, or the point of prohibition, the 
absurd character of the system manifests itself." 

Xotwithstanding the very able argumentation against the 
bill, it passed as already stated, by a small majority. Mr. Clay 
became identified with the protective system. It became a set- 
tled matter that he should promote the interests of the manufac- 
turers, and that they should act politically under his leadership. 

In 1828, the manufacturers applied to Congress for still fur- 
ther protection. They previously held a convention in Ilarris- 
burg, which met July 30, 1827, in which the subject of pro- 
tection was discussed with great earnestness ;: and having settled 
that question to their own satisfaction, the}'' addressed Congress 
in a memorial, in which they asked for a large increase of duties^. 

In the mean time Massachusetts, and ]^ew England gen- 
erally, though extensively opposed to the tariff of 1821, had ex- 
perienced a change in their interests or in their political pur-- 
jjoses, so that they were disposed to go for higher protective 
duties. Mr. Webster, who had supported the interests of com- 
merce, in opposition to the interests of manufactures, was now 
ready to vote for a high tariff bill, for the benefit of corporate 
capital. 

The Southern States, thus deserted by !N"ew England, became 
greatly alarmed at the impending additional burdens which 
were to be imposed on their industry. The President, and the 
Secretary of State, Mr. Clay, were in favor of protection, as 
were a majority of both Houses in Congress. But such men as 
John Randolph, Mr. McDuffie, General Hamilton, P. P. 
Barbour, and others, made very able speeches against the bill, 



92 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

showing lip tliG fallacies of the Harrisburg address, and the 
"wrong of taxing one part of the country for the benefit of an- 
other part, beyond wliut is necessary for the purposes of rev- 
enue. The bill, however, Avas passed April 22, 1828, by a vote 
of 105 to 94. 

On the passage of the bill, Mr. Wilde moved to amend the 
title, by adding the words, " and for the encouragement of do- 
inestic manufactures." Mr. IvANDOLrii opposed the amend- 
ment, and said if the bill had its true name, it should be called, 
'' A bill to rob and plunder nearly one-half of the country for 
the benefit of the residue.'' Mr. Dkayton proposed to strike out 
all after " An act," and to insert, " to increase the duties upon 
i-ertaiu imports, for tlie purpose of increasing the profits of cer- 
tain manufactures." It would not have been decorous to pro- 
pose the additional amendment, " and to make a certain man 
President." 

PROTEST OF GEORGIA. 

Like the tariff act of 182-1, but with much greater empnasis, 
this tariff act of 1828 was passed in opposition to the determined 
opposition of the Southern States, an opposition which continued 
to manifest itself during its operation. A protest against it by 
the Legislature of Georgia, was introduced into the Senate of 
the United States, through the Vice-President, January 12, 
1829, of which the following is an extract : " In her sovereign 
character, the State of Georgia protests against the act of the 
last session of Congress, entitled, ' An act in alteration of the 
several acts imj^osing duties on imports,' as deceptive in its 
title, fraudulent in its pretexts, oppressive in its exactions, par- 
tial and unjust in its operation, unconstitutional in its well- 
known objects, ruinous to commerce and agriculture, to secure 
a hateful monopoly to a combination of importunate manufac- 
turers. 

" Demanding the repeal of an act which has already dis- 
turbed the Union and endangered the public tranquillity, weak- 
ened the confidence of the whole States in the Federal Govern- 
ment, and diminished the afPection of large masses of the people 
to the Union itself, and the abandonment of the degrading sys- 
tem which considers the peoj^le as incapable of wisely directing 



PROTEST OF GEORGIA. 93 

tlicir o\ni enterprise, which sets up the servants of tlic people in 
Congress as the exclusive judges of what pursuits are most ad- 
vantageous and suitable for those by whom they Avere elected, 
the State of Georgia expects that, in perpetual testimony there- 
of, the deliberate and solemn expression of her opinion will be 
carefully kept in the archives of the Senate ; and in justification 
of her character to the present generation and to posterity, if, 
unfortunately, Congress, disregarding the protest, and continu- 
ing to pervert powers granted for clearly defined and well-un- 
derstood purposes, to eftectuate objects never intended by the 
great parties by whom the Constitution was framed, to be in- 
trusted to the controlling guardianship of the Federal Govern- 
ment, should render necessary measures of a more decisive char- 
acter, for the protection of the people of the State, and the vin- 
dication of the Constitution of the United States." 

Mr. Bekkiex, on the occasion of its presentation, made, 
among other remarks, the following : " Forty years of success- 
ful experiment have proved the efficiency of this Government to 
sustain us in an honorable intercourse with the other nations of 
the world. Externally in peace and in war, amid the fluctua- 
tions of commerce and the strife of arms, it has protected our 
interests and defended our rights. One trial, one fearful trial, 
remains to be made. It is one, under the apprehension of which 
the bravest may iremble, which the wise and the good will 
anxiously endeavor to avoid. It is that experiment which shall 
test the competency of this Government to preserve our internal 
peace, whenever a question, vitally afifecting the bond which 
unites us as one people, shall come to be solemnly agitated be- 
tween the sovereign members of this Confederacy. In propor- 
tion to its dauo-ers should be our solicitude to avoid it, bv ab- 
staining on the one hand from acts of doubtful legislation, as 
well as by the manner of resistance on the other, to those Avliich 
are deemed imconstitutional. Between the independent mem- 
bers of this Confederacy, sir, there can be no common arbiter. 
They are necessarily remitted to their own sovereign will, delib- 
erately expressed, in the exercise of those reserved rights of 
sovereignty, the delegation of which would have been an act of 
political suicide. The designation of such an arbiter, sir, was, 
by the force of invincible necessity, ca-ms omissus amoug the 



9i THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

provisions of a Constitution conferring limited powers, the in- 
terpretation of which was to be conlicled to the subordinate 
agents, created by tliose wlio were intrusted to administer it. 

'• I earnestly hope that the wise and conciliatory spirit of 
this Government, and of those of the several States, will post- 
pone to a period far distant, the day that will summon us to so 
fearful a trial. If, indeed, we arc doomed to encounter it, I as 
earnestly hope that it may be entered \ipon in the spirit of 
peace, and with cherished recollections of former amity." 

PROTEST OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 

J^ebruary 10, 1829. — Mr. W. Smith, Senator, presented to 
the Senate the protest of South Carolina against the tarifl act 
of 1828, for tlie following reasons : 

" 1. Because the good people of this commonwealth believe 
the poAvers of Congress were delegated to it in trust for the ac- 
complishment of certain specified objects, which limit and con- 
trol them, and that every exercise of them for any other purpose 
is a violation of the Constitution, as unwarrantable as the un- 
disguised assumption of substantive powers, not granted or ex- 
pressly withheld. 

" 2. Because the power to lay duties on imports is, and in 
its very nature can be, only the means of effecting the objects 
specified in the Constitution ; since no free Government, and, 
least of all, a Government of enumerated powers, can of right 
impose any tax (any more than a penalty) which is not at once 
justified by public necessity, and clearly within the scope and 
province of the social compact ; and since the right of confining 
appropriations of the public money to such legitimate and con- 
stitutional objects is as essential to the liberties of the people, as 
their unquestionable privilege to be taxed only by their own 
consent. 

" 3. Because they believe that the tariff law, passed by Con- 
gress at its last session, and all other acts of which the principal 
object is the protection of manufactures, or any other branch of 
domestic industry — if they be considered as the exercise of 
a supposed power in Congress to tax at its own good will and 
pleasure and to apply the money raised to objects not specified 



PROTEST OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 95 

in tlie Constitution — is a violation of these fundamental princi- 
ples, a Lreacli of a well-defined trust, and a ]:>erversior. uf the 
high j^owers vested in the Federal Government for Federal pur- 
poses only. 

" 4. Because such acts considered in the light of a regula- 
tion of commerce, are equally liable to objection ; since, although 
the power to regulate commerce may, like other j)owers, be ex- 
ercised so as to i^rotect domestic manufactures, yet it is clearly 
distinguished from a power to do so co nomine^ both in the na- 
ture of the thing, and in the common acceptation of the terms ; 
and because the confounding of them would lead to the most 
extravagant results ; since the encouragement of domestic indus- 
try implies an absolute control over all the interests, resources, 
and pursuits of a people, and is inconsistent with the idea of 
any other than a simple consolidated Government. 

" 5. Because, from contemporaneous expositions of the Con- 
stitution in the numbers of the Federalist, (which is cited only be- 
cause the Supreme Court has recognized its authority.) it is clear 
that to regulate commerce was considered by the Convention 
as only incidentally connected with the encouragement of agri- 
culture and manufactures ; and because the laying imposts and 
duties on imports was not understood to justify, in any case, a 
prohibition of foreign commodities, except as a means of extend- 
ing commerce by coercing foreign nations to a fair reciprocity 
in their intercourse with us, or for some other Jjona fide com- 
mercial purpose. 

" G. Because, whilst the power to protect manufactures is 
nowhere expressly granted to Congress, nor can be considered 
as necessary and proper to carry into eficct any specified power, 
it seems to be expressly reserved to the States by the tenth sec- 
tion of the first article of the Constitution. 

" 7. Because, even admitting Congress have a constitutional 
right to protect manufactures by the imposition of duties, or by 
regulations of commerce, designed principally for that purpose, 
yet a tariff, the operation of Avliich is grossly unequal and op- 
pressive, is such an abuse of power as is incompatible with the 
principles of a free Government and the great end of civil socie- 
ty, and equality of rights and protection. 

" 8. Finally, because South Carolina, from her climate, situ- 



96 ' THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEKSY. 

ation, and peculiar institutions, is, and must ever continue to 
1)0, Avholly dependent upon agriculture and commerce, not only 
for lier prosperity, but for her very existence as a State ; because 
tlie valuable ])ro(lucts of her soil, the blessings by which Divine 
Providence seems to have designed to compensate for the dis- 
advantages mider which she suffers in other respects, are among 
the very few that can bo cidtivated by slave labor ; and if, by 
the loss of her foreign commerce, those products should be con- 
iincd to an inadequate market, tlic fate of this fertile State 
would be poverty and utter desolation ; her citizens, in despair, 
would emigrate to more fortunate regions, and the whole frame 
of her civil polity be impaired and deranged, if not dissolved 
entirely. 

" Deeply impressed with these considerations, the represent- 
atives of the good people of this commonwealth, anxiously de- 
siring to live in peace with their fellow-citizens, and to do all 
that in them lies to preserve and perpetuate the union of the 
States, and the liberties of which it is the surest pledge ; but 
feeling it to be their bounden duty to expose and resist all en- 
croachments upon the true spirit of the Constitution, lest an ap- 
parent acquiescence in the system of protecting duties should 
be drawn into precedent, do, in the name of the commonwealth 
of South Carolina, claim to enter upon the journals of the Sen- 
ate their protest against it, as unconstitutional, oppressive, and 
unjust." 

Mr. Smith, who was a distinguished member of the first 
Congress, and enjoyed the confidence and friendship of Alex- 
ander Hamilton, in presenting the protest, among other things 
said : " South Carolina believed that when, as a sovereign 
State, she surrendered a portion of her authority, it was for cer- 
tain and specified objects ; and that, when those objects were 
accomplished, the authority ceded to the General Government 
was at an end ; that any measures pursued beyond the objects 
just contenq^latcd was a violation of the compact : it belonged 
to the States to resume their authority. South Carolina did not 
assent to the postulate that the authority was ever delegated to 
the Government, which the Government had assumed over in- 
dividuals and property composing the State. 

" We had been told that the high duties would be reduced ; 



PKOTEST OF SOL'TII CAROLINA. 97 

but SO far from this, the manufactories had increased ; the pros- 
perity of one had induced others to embarlv in the business, and 
there had been constant application for new duties, which had 
been granted. South Carolina has protested against these du- 
ties ; he did not know that the Constitution acknowledged this 
principle ; lie did know that the Constitution had not lately 
been looked to. Constitutional arc-uments had been used which 
had never been replied to," 

Mr. IIayne, the other Senator, among other things said : 
" One of the most unhappy circumstances connected with the 
present condition of the Southern States, is the great, he might 
perhaps say, the insuperable difficulty of causing their senti- 
ments and feelings to be made known, so as to be understood 
and appreciated by their fellow-citizens in other quarters of the 
Union. Yiewing the United States as one country, the people 
of the South might almost be considered as strangers in the land 
of their fathers. The fruits of their industry had, from the pol- 
icy pursued by the Federal Government, been flowing to the 
North, in a current as steady and as undeviating as the waters 
of the great Gulf ; and as the sources of our prosperity were 
drying up, that reciprocal intercourse, which had softened as- 
perities and bound the different parts of the Union together in 
the bonds of sympathy and afi'ection, had in a great measure 
ceased. 

" That close and intimate communion, necessary to a full 
knowledge of each other, no longer existed, and in place of it 
there was springing up, (it is useless to disguise the truth,) 
among the people in opposite quarters of the Union, a spirit of 
jealousy and distrust, founded on the settled conviction, on the 
one part, that they are the victims of injustice, and on the other, 
that our complaints, if not groundless, may be safely disregarded. 
The people of the South are well aware of the evils growing out 
of this unhappy state of things, and of none are they more deeply 
sensible than that (from causes to which I shall now advert) 
the eyes of our brethren have been closed to our true condition, 
and their hearts shut against our just complaints. Althougli 
South Carolina, in common with several of her sister States, 
had, on former occasions, avowed the principles contained in 
the protest, yet it may well be doubted (if we can judge from 



98 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEEST. 

what we see and hear around bs) whetlier it is believed north 
of the Potomac that she really entertains them : for, in the face 
of the solemn doclaratious of her people and their representa- 
tives, denoimcing the policy pm-sued by the Federal Govern- 
ment as involving them in ruin, we find the public ear abused 
and the public mind deluded by exaggerated statements of our 
iminterrupted prosperity and happiness. It has even been in- 
sinuated here, at the very seat of Government, that the enlight- 
ened public of the South is in favor of this policy, and that the 
excitement which prevails there is merely ' artificial,' if it has 
not been ' got up for party purposes.' " 

North Carolina also protested against the law ; and Alabama 
denied the power of Congress to lay duties for protection. 

-REMARKS. 

1. Tariff laws, fi'om 1789 until 181G, had been enacted for 
the raising revenue for the support of the Government, and pay- 
ing off the national debts ; while the protection afforded by 
them to manufactures had been purely incidental. 

2. In 1816, mainly from patriotic motives, the rates of tariff 
were raised, for the purpose of affording protection to manufac- 
turers, who could not maintain a competition with foreign man- 
ufacturers at peace prices. To this there was no sectional oppo- 
sition. It was generally felt to be desirable that the country 
ought to be more independent of foreign nations than it had 
been during the war, for the supply of manufactures. 

3. In 1824 it became evident that politicians and manu- 
facturers had united their efforts to promote what Mr. Clay 
(•ailed the " American system," by which the former class 
might the l)etter rise to political power in the country, and by 
which the latter might accumulate large fortunes by the indirect 
bounty paid by their countrymen in the shape of a tariff for 
protection. Mr. Clay, having left the Democratic party, united 
his political fortunes with the Northern manufacturers. The 
interests of the Southern States lay in free trade. Party politics 
and the hopes of politicians likewise became connected with the 
-doctrines of free trade. 

4. Tlie tariff of 1828 was not a " judicious tariff." Like the 



REMARKS. 99 

tariff of 1824, it was established immediately before the Presi- 
dential election, which it was designed to influence and control. 
The address of the Ilarrisbnrg mannfactnrers' Convention was 
a strange medley of ideas, and yet it had a powerful influence 
•in certain quarters upon party politics of the time. It was de- 
signed, probably, among other things, to promote the election 
of some politician. to the Presidency who was in favor of a hifdi 
tariff, and who would satisfy the cravings of the manufacturers 
for large gains, 

5. The Southern States naturally became very hostile to the 
strangely so-called " American system," which they viewed as 
adopted to enrich ISTorthern manufacturers, and exalt to ofiice 
its patrons. From the increasing demands of manufacturers, 
they came to regard the tariff for protection as a " daughter of 
the horse-leech which cries ' Give, give.' " 

It was not strange that the Southern States should have the 
same repugnance to Federal legishition in 1828, which imposed 
ruinous burdens upon their agricultural industry, which the 
ISTorthern States manifested during and some years before the 
war of 1812, towards Federal legislation, which imposed severe 
restrictions upon their commerce. However injudicious, it is 
not strange that they should look to nullification or secession as 
a relief from what they deemed unconstitutional burdens, just 
as some of the ISTorthern States then did. 

6. Northern manufacturers, like Xorthern men generallv, 
were not acquainted with the agricultural interests of the South ; 
just as Southern planters were not acquainted with Northern 
interests. Tliey did not apprehend the real operation of the 
tarifl' upon the planting States. Politicians and manufacturers 
persuaded themselves that they understood the interests of the 
South better than Southern men did. They seriously attempted 
in Congress, in editorials, and in conversation, to show that it 
was for the benefit of Southern planters that they should jDay 
high duties to the Government, or high prices to ISTorthern 
manufacturers. They wrote or talked as if the ]S"orthern States 
were justified in forcing upon the South a high tariff for its 
benefit. 



CHAPTER IX. 

GENERAL JACKSOn's AD^IINISTRATIO^rw 
March 4, 1829— March 4, lb37. 

General Jackson was elected President by 178 electoral 
votes against 83 votes wliich were cast for Mr. Adams. Every 
State south of the Potomac cast its electoral vote for General 
Jackson. Every electoral vote of the New England States, 
except one from Maine, was cast for Mr. Adajnis. At his second 
election he received 210 votes ; Mr. Clay received 49 votes. 

He was in favor of a strict construction of the Constitution, 
by which tlie States would practically retain their reserved 
rights. He was opposed to that broad or large construction 
of the Constitution, by Avhich a United States Bank had been 
chartered, and by which a system of internal improvements had 
l.)ecn adopted or projected, and by which high protective tariffs 
had been established. 

In his inaugural address, he has the following paragraj^h in 
reference to the position of South Carolina and Georgia and 
other States in respect to the tariff of 1828. " In such measures 
as I may be called on to pursue, in regard to the rights of the 
separate States, I hope to be animated by a proper respect for 
those sovereign memljcrs of our Union ; taking care not to con- 
found the powers they have reserved to themselves, with those 
they have granted to the Confederacy." In liis first annual 
message, after speaking of the tariff and any attempts that may 
be made to connect it with the party jjolitics of the day, he 
adds : " Legislation, subjected to such influences, can never be 



SPEECHES ON NULLIFICATION. 101 

just, and cannot long retain the sanction of a people whose 
active patriotism is not bounded by sectional limits, nor insen- 
sible to that spirit of concession and forbearance which fnvcs 
life to our political compact, and still sustains it. Discardini-- 
all calculations of political ascendency, the I^orth, the South, 
the East, the West, should uijite in diminishing any burthen of 
which either may justly complain." " I cannot, therefore, too 
strongly warn you against all encroachments upon the legiti- 
mate sphere of State Sovereignty." 

SPEECHES ON NULLIFICATION. 

In January, 1830, during the first session of Congress in 
General Jackson's Administration, the celebrated dispute upon 
Mr. Foot's Eesolution concerning the public lands took place 
in the Senate. In this debate, Mr. Hayne and Mr. Webster 
made their sectional sj)eeches, into which the subject of Nulli- 
fication largely entered. Mr. IIayne opened the debate on the 
subject of the public lands, and was followed by Mr. Webstee, 
in a speech in which he combated ojiinions on the subject of 
the Union, held by some of Mr. Hayne's friends, among whom 
was the Yice-President, (Mr. Calhoun,) then in the chair. This 
unexpectedly called out Mr. IIayne to defend these opinions, 
from which Mr. AYebstek had exonerated him, which he gen- 
erously did, in a speech of great ability and eloquence. To this 
Mr. Webstee replied, in a speech of equal or greater ability 
and eloquence. This produced a rejoinder by Mr. IIayne, 
which produced a surrejoinder by Mr. Webstee. 

These speeches were eminently sectional, and have had an 
influence to increase the strength of sectional feeling in the 
Korth and in the South. Mr. Webstee's eulogy upon Massa- 
chusetts and upon the Union, in his most elaborate speech on 
the occasion, are familiar as declamations to the colleges and 
schools of the I^ortli. In the speeches, both of Mr. IIayne and 
Mr. Webstee, there were fallacies which were sIioavji up by 
other speakers who addressed the Senate on the subject of Nul- 
lilication, among whom were Mr. Rowan, Mr. Geundy, Mr. 
Clayton, Mr. Woodbuey, and Mr. Edwaed Livingston. In the 
course of his speech, Mr. LmNOSTON spoke as follows : 



102 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEESY. 

" My learned and honorable friend, the Senator near me, 
from Sontli Carolina, (Mr. IIayne,) comes, in the eloquent ar- 
guments he has made, to the conclusion, that whenever, in the 
language of the Virginia resolutions, (which he adopts,) there is, 
in the ojiinion of any one State, " a palpable, deliberate, and 
dangerous violation of tlie Constitution by a law of Congress,*' 
such State may, without ceasing to be a member of the Union, 
declare the law to be unconstitutional, and prevent its execu- 
tion within the State ; that this is a constitutional right, and 
that its exercise will produce a constitutional remedy, by oblig- 
ing Congress either to repeal the law, or to obtain an explicit 
grant of the power which is denied by the State, by submitting 
an amendment to the several States, and that, by the decision 
of the requisite number, the State, as well as the Union, would 
be bound. It would be doing injustice, both to my friend and 
to his argument, if I did not add, that this resort to the nullify- 
ing power, as it has been termed, ought to be had only in the 
last resort, when the grievance was intolerable, and all other 
means of remonstrance and appeal to the other States had failed. 

" In this opinion, I understand the honorable and learned 
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (Mr. Rowan) substan- 
tially to agree, particularly in the constitutional right of pre- 
venting the execution of the obnoxious law. 

" The Senator from Tennessee, (Mr. Grundy,) in his speech, 
which was listened to with so much attention and pleasure, 
very justly denies the right of declaring the nullity of a law, 
and preventing its execution, to tlie ordinary Legislature, but 
erroneously, in my opinion, gives it to a convention. 

" My friend from New Hampshire, (Mr. Woodbury,) of 
whose luminous argument I cannot speak too highly, and to the 
greatest part of which I agree, docs not coincide in the assertion 
of a constitutional right of preventing tlie execution of a law 
believed to be unconstitutional, but refers opposition to the un- 
alienable right of resistance to oppression. 

" All these Senators consider the Constitution as a compact 
oetween the States in their sovereign capacity ; and one of 
them (Mr. Rowan) has contended that sovereignty cannot be 
divided ; from which it may be inferred that no part of. the 
sovereign power has been transferred to the General Government. 



SPEECHES ON NULLIFICATION. 103 

" The Senator from Massacliusetts, (Mr. Webster,) in hk 
verj eloqnent and justly admired address on this subject, con- 
siders the Federal Constitution as entirely popular, and not 
created by compact, and from this position, very naturally 
shows that there can be no constitutional right of actual resist- 
ance to a law of that Government, but that intolerable and 
illegal acts may justify it on first principles. 

" However these opinions may differ, there is one consol- 
atory reflection, that none of them justify a violent opposition 
given to an unconstitutional law, until an extreme case of suffer- 
ing has occurred. Still less do any of them suppose the actual 
existence of such a case. 

" But tlie danger of establishing, on the one hand, a constitu- 
tional veto in each of the States, upon any act of the whole, to 
be exercised whenever, in the opinion of the Legislature of such 
State, the act they complain of is contrary to the Constitution ; 
and on the other, the dangers which result to the State Govern- 
ments by considering that of the Union as entirely popular, and 
denying the existence of any compact ; seem, both of them, to 
be so great, as to justify, and indeed demand, an expression of 
my dissent from both. 

" The arguments on the one side, to show that the Consti- 
tution is the result of a compact between the States, cannot, I 
think, be controverted ; and those which go to show that it is 
founded on the consent of the people, and, in one sense, a pop- 
ular government, are equally incontrovertible. Both of these 
propositions, seemingly so contradictory, are tnic, and both of 
them are false — true, as it respects one feature in the Constitu- 
tion ; erroiieous, if applied to the whole. 

" By a popular consolidated Government, I understand one 
that is founded on the consent, express or implied, of the people 
of the whole nation ; and which operates directly upon the 
people. 

" By a Federative Government, as contradistinguished from 
the former, I mean one composed of several independent States, 
bound together for specific purposes, and relying for the efficacy 
of its operations on its action upon the different States in their 
political capacity, not individually upon their citizens. 

" The old Confederation was a compact between the States ; 



104 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

but among a number of stipulations strictly federative, it con- 
tained others wliich gave to the Congress powers which trenched 
upon the State sovereignties ; to declare war and to nuike peace ; 
to enter into treaties binding on the whole ; to establisli Courts 
of Admiralty, witli power to bind the citizens of the States in- 
dividually in cases coming under that jurisdiction ; to raise 
armies, equip fleets, coin money, emit bills of credit, and other 
similar powers. 

" In the Federal Constitution, this combination of the two 
characteristics of Government is more apparent. It was framed 
by delegates appointed by the States ; it was ratified by con- 
ventions of the people of each State, convened according to tlie 
laws of the respective States. It guarantees the existence of the 
States, wliicli are necessary to its own ; the States are rej)re- 
sented in one branch by Senators, chosen by the Legislatures ; 
and in the other, by Representatives taken from the people, but 
chosen by a rule which may be made and varied by the States, 
not by Congress — the qualifications of electors being difterent in 
difi'erent States. They may make amendments to the Constitu- 
tion. In short, the Government had its inception with them ; 
it depends on their political existence for its operation ; and its 
duration cannot go beyond theirs. The States existed before 
the Constitution ; they parted only with such powers as are 
specified in that instrument ; they continue still to exist, witli 
all the powers they have not ceded ; and the present Govern- 
ment would never, itself, have gone into operation, had not the 
States, in their political capacity, consented. That consent 
is a compact of each one with the whole ; not, as has been ar- 
gued, (by Mr. "Weestee, in order to throw a kind of ridicule on 
this convincing part of tlie argument of mj friend from South 
Carolina,) with the Government which was made by such com- 
pact. It is difficidt, therefore, it would appear, witli all these 
characters of a federative nature, to deny to the present Gov- 
ernment the description of one founded on compact, to M'hicli 
each State was a party ; and a conclusive proof, if any more 
were wanted, would be in the fact, that the States adopted the 
Constitution at difterent times, and many of them on conditions 
which were afterwards complied witli by amendments. .If it 
were strictly a popular Government, in the sense that is con- 



SPEECHES ON >rULLiriCATIOX. 105 

tended for, the moment a majority of the 2-)cople of the United 
States had consented, it would liavc bound the rest ; and yet, 
after all the others, except one, had adopted the Constitution, 
the smallest still held out ; and if Rhode Island had not con- 
sented to enter into the Confederacy, she would, perhaps, at this 
time, have been unconnected with us. 

" But with all these proofs (and I think them incontrover- 
tible) that the Government could not have been brought into 
being without a compact, yet I am far from admitting that, 
because this entered so largely into its origin, therefore there 
are no characteristics of another kind, which impress on it 
strongly the marks of a more intimate union and amalgamation 
of the interests of the citizens of the different States, which 
gives to them the general character of citizens of the Unite<l 
nation. "- * The Government, also, for the most part, (except 
in the election of Senators, Representatives, and President, and 
some others.) acts in the exercise of its legitimate powers di- 
rectly upon individuals, and not through the medium of State 
authorities. This is an essential character of a popular Govern- 
ment. 

" I place little reliance on the argument which has been 
mostly depended on, to show that this is a popular Govern- 
ment : I mean the preamble, which begins with the M'ords, 
' "We, the people.' It proves nothing more than the fact, that 
the people of the several States had been consulted, and had 
given their consent to the instrument. To give these words anv 
other construction, would be to make them an assertion directly 
contrary to the fact. We know, and it never has been imagined 
or asserted, that the people of the United States, collectively, as 
a whole people, gave their assent, or were consulted in tliat 
capacity ; the people of each State were consulted, to know 
whether that State would form a part of the United States, 
under the Articles of the Constitution, and to that they gave 
their assent, simply as citizens of that State." 

Tlie discussion, as already stated, came up unexpectedly to 
Mr. Hayxe and Mr. AYebstee, certainly to the formei", on a sul>- 
ject, namely the public lands, which had no necessary connec- 
tion with the subject of XuJUjication ; probably the mind 
of each was full of the latter subject ; and hence the facility 



106 THE SECTIONAL C0NTK0VEE8Y. 

M-ith wliicli both entered on tlie discussion, after it had been 
distinctly introduced by Mr. Webster. 

President Jackson, in his annual message, at the opening 
of Congress, 1831, recommended the abolition of duties on nu- 
merous articles of necessity or comfort not produced at home. 
On the 9tli of January, 1832, Mr. Clay submitted a Resolution 
in relation to the tariff, and in a speech of three days' duration 
he supported his " American system," in subordination to 
■which he proposed to make any reduction of duties which 
should be necessary. 

In opposition to Mr. Clay's resolution. General Samuel Smith 
of Maryland spoke as follows : 

" We have arrived at a crisis. Yes, Mr. President, a crisis 
more appalling than a day of battle. I adjure the Committee 
on Manufactures to pause ; to reflect on the dissatisfaction of 
the South. South Carolina has expressed herself strongly 
against the tariff of 1828, stronger than the other States are 
willing to speak. But, sir, the whole South feel deeply the op- 
pression of this tariff. In this respect there is no difference of 
opinion. The South, the whole Southern States, all consider it 
as oppressive. They have not yet spoken ; but when they do 
speak, it will be in a voice that will not implore, but will de- 
mand redress. 

" I am, Mr. President, one of the few survivors of those who 
fought in the War of the Revolution. We then thought we 
fought for liberty, for equal rights. We fought against taxa- 
tion, the proceeds of which were for the benefit of others. 
Where is the difference if the peoj^le are to be taxed by the 
manufacturers or by any others? I say manufacturers, and 
why do I say so ? When the Senate met, there was a strong 
disposition with all j)arties to ameliorate the tariff of 1828 ; but 
now I sec a change, which makes me almost despair of any 
thing effectual being accomplished. Even the small concessions 
made by the Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Clay,) have been 
reprobated by the lobby members, the agents of the manufac- 
turers. I am told they have put their fiat on any change what- 
ever, and hence, as a consequence, the change in the course and 
language of gentlemen that precludes all hope. Tliose inter- 
ested may hang on the Committee of Manufactures like an 



TUE AMEKICAN SYSTEM, 107 

inciibiTS. I say to that Committee, depend upon jonr own 
good judgment, discard sectional interests, and study only the 
common weal. Act with these views, and thus retain the afiec- 
tions of the South." 

Mr. Clay was deeply and anxiously sensible of the discon- 
tent in the Southern States in respect to a protective tariff. 
He would, if possible, avert the danger to the Union from that 
quarter, but he felt that there was a greater danger from 
another quarter if the " American system" should be given up. 
In his speech he exj)resses himself in the follov/ing terms : 

" And now, Mr. President, I have to make a few observa- 
tions on a delicate subject, which I apj)roach Avith all the re- 
spect that is due to its serious and grave nature. They have not, 
indeed, been rendered necessary by the sj)eech of the gentleman 
from South Carolina, (Mr. IIayne,) whose forbearance to notice 
the topic was commendable, as his argument throughout was 
characterized by an ability and dignity worthy of him and of 
the Senate. * '-^ But it is impossible to conceal from our 
view the fact that there is a great excitement in South Carolina, 
that the protective system is openly and violently denounced 
in public meetings, and that the Legislature itself has declared 
its purpose of resorting to counteracting measures ; a suspension 
of which has only been submitted to, for the purpose of allow- 
ing Congress to retrace its steps w^ith res^Dcct to this Union, 
Mr. President, the truth cannot be too generally proclaimed, 
nor too strongly inculcated, that it is necessary to the whole 
and to all the parts — necessary to those j)arts in diti'crcnt de- 
grees, but vitally necessary to each. 

" The danger to our Union does not lie on the side of per- 
sistence in the American system, but on that of its abandon- 
ment. If, as I have supposed and believe, the inhabitants of 
all north and east of James Eiver, and all Avest of the moun- 
tains, including Louisiana, are deeply interested in the preserva- 
tion of that system, would they be reconciled to its overthrow 'i 
Can it be expected that two-thirds or three-fourths of the people 
of the United States would consent to the destruction of a policy 
believed to be absolutely necessary to their prosperity ? Wlien, 
too, the sacrifice is made at the instance of a single interest, 
wdiich they verily believe will not be promoted by it. " " * 



108 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEKSY. 

AVliat •would be the condition of this Union, if Pennsylvania and 
Xew York, those mammoth members of our confederacy, ^v•e^e 
tirmly persuaded that their industry was paralyzed and their 
prosperity blighted, by the enforcement of the British Colonial 
system, under the delusive name of free trade? They are now 
tranquil, and happy, and contented, conscious of their welfare, 
and feeling a salutary and rapid circulation of the products of 
liome manufactures and home industry throughout all their 
great arteries. But let that be checked, let them feel that a 
foreign system is to predominate, and the sources of their sub- 
sistence and comfort arc to be dried up ; let ISTew England and 
the Middle States all feel that they too arc the victims of a mis- 
taken i^olicy, and let those vast portions of our country despair 
of any favorable change, and then, indeed, might we tremble for 
the continuance of the Union." 

Here we are presented with the picture of disunion coming 
from the North, if the protective system should be abandoned. 
Mr. Clay thus intimates that if the North should not have the 
advantages of protection to their manufactures, it would adopt 
a course to destroy the Union. 

On January 23, 1832, Mr. Dkayton, of South Carolina, pre- 
sented a memorial of the members of the Legislature of South 
Carolina, opposed to nullification. They state " that they arc 
exceedingly aggrieved by the laws of the United States, im- 
posing high duties on foreign merchandise for the protection of 
manufactures ; " " that the policy, the justice, and the constitu- 
tionality of the present system of high i)rotective duties have 
been strenuously denied." " Tlie objections to the restrictive 
system are of the gravest character, and the sense of oppression 
and injustice, which it has excited, are widely diffused and 
deeply felt." Thus there appears to have been no difference of 
opinion in South Carolhia, in respect to the injurious effects of 
the tariff laws then in force. 

While this bill was under consideration, Mr. Choate, of 
Massachusetts, in an able and characteristic speech, said : " Still 
the difficulty recurs. There is a great sectional excitement, and 
that, whether groundless or not, is, 2?cr se, a case to act on. It 
is desirable to allay the excitement. Yes, certainly ; but how ? 
Sir, my humble scheme is this : I think, in the language of 



THE COMPEOMISE BILL. 109 

medical men, tlie case requires topical treatment, local applica- 
tions. Search out the sectional grievance, if you can find it. 
Find what are the articles exclusively of Southern consumption, 
and important in tlie economy of the South, and relieve them 
of all protective duty. Strike them out of the statute. For so 
much let there be no tariif, and let them he fabricated in Eng- 
land, that the American Union may be preserved ; and let all 
others be as they are now effectually protected." He evidently 
was for concession and conciliation. 

The bill was passed in the House, June 27, 1832, and in the 
Senate, July 9, 1832, and was entirely unsatisfactory to the 
Southern States. 

In the next annual message. President Jackson, and in his 
report, the Secretary of the Treasury, recommended a change in 
the tariff laws. 

The Oedixaxce of the Convention of South Carolina was 
issued November 24, 1832, declaring the revenue laws of the 
United States null and void, and enjoining the Legislature to 
carry the decree into effect. The Legislature met and passed 
the necessary laws. The State authorities were now placed in 
opposition to the Federal laws. Tlie militia of the State Avere 
oro-anized and armed, to be readv for action. General Scott 
was sent to Charleston with Federal troops and two vessels of 
war, to be prepared to enforce the laws of the Federal Govern- 
ment for the collection of the revenue. The proclamation of 
General Jacksox, in view of that ordinance, was issued Decem- 
ber 11, 1832. His message was sent into the Senate and the 
House of Eepresentatives, in which he asked for authority and 
means to enforce the collection of revenue in South Carolina. 
A bill for that purpose was introduced into the Senate from the 
Committee on the Judiciary, January 28, 1833. 

But before that bill was passed, Mr. Clay introduced his 
compromise bill, February 12, 1833. This bill was passed in 
the House, February 22, 1833, and in the Senate, March 1, 
1833. The revenue collection bill was passed in Senate, Feb- 
ruary 18, 1833, and in the House, February 28, 1833. The 
compromise bill satisfied South Carolina so far, that Governor 
IIa^iilton called the Convention together, and communicated 
to it the modification of the tariff. The Convention then passed 



110 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEKSY. 

an ordinance repealing the nullification law. Tbns the sectional 
difficult}' was settled for the time. 

REMARKS. 

1. The tariff laws of lS2i, 182S, 1832, were carried against 
the opinions and interests of the Southern States, by the com- 
bined influence of manufacturers and politicians. In 1824, a 
portion of the Eastern members were opposed to the tariff act, 
from a regard to the commercial interests of the States or dis- 
tricts which they represented. With some exceptions, the tariff 
laws of 1828 and 1832 were I^orthern measures, for the benefit 
of the ISTorth. With some few exceptions, these laws were vig- 
orously opposed by the South, because they Avould operate in- 
juriously upon Southern interests. Louisiana, from a regard 
to her sugar crop, which was jorotected by the tariff laws, went 
in favor of those laws. The greed of gain and the greed of office 
conspired to pass those laws for the evident benefit of the Korth, 
for the doubtful benefit of the whole country, and to the mani- 
fest injury of the South, which had no manufactures to be ben- 
efited. 

2. The Southern States felt that they were 02)pressed by 
these burdensome tariffs. According to the intimation of 
George Mason in the Constitutional Convention, they found 
themselves " bound hand and foot " in the power of the Eastern 
States. And if these did not exclaim, " The Lord hath deliv- 
ered them in our hands," still they talked about the " general 
welfare " as they understood it, and not about the rights of the 
States, or the provisions of the Constitution which secured those 
rights. As " a gift destroyeth the heart," so " oppression 
maketli a wise man mad." As the profits derived from pro- 
tected manufactures j^roduced narrow and sectional feelings at 
the I^orth, so the burdens imposed by extravagant tariff laws 
led the State of South Carolina to the madness or folly of nulli- 
fying those laws, on the ground that they were oppressive and 
unconstitutional. 

To relieve herself from the operation of these tariff laws. 
South Carolina passed the ordinance of nullification, -Avhich, 
whatever may be trac in the theory of the relationship of the 



EKilAKKS. m 

States, involves the practical absurdity that a State mav, at one 
and the same time, he in the Union for the enjoyment of its 
benefits, and out of the Union in bearing its burdens. South 
Carolina, in the ordinance, declares that in case of the applica- 
tion of physical force, on the part of the General Government, 
to execute the tariff laws, she will secede and set up a separate 
Government. To meet this threat. Senator Clayton declared 
and proved that State secession is a less evil than State nulli- 
fication. 

The country was in a very unhappy condition. South Caro- 
lina had passed the ordinance of nullification, and was threat- 
ening secession. The Southern States sympathized witli her. 
Virginia had passed a resolve that she expected both the Gen- 
eral Government and South Carolina to keep the peace. 

3. General Jackson was the man for the occasion ; and yet 
his action in the premises and his motives have been misunder- 
stood. 

a. He was opposed to liigh tariffs, and thus agreed witli 
Southern men in regard to the cause of the difficulty. 

1). lie earnestly advised the repeal, or rather a modification 
of the tarifi'laws, which had created the difficulty. This he did 
repeatedly in his messages to Congress, and j ust before the or- 
dinance was j)assed. 

c. lie claimed to be a native of South Carolina, and could, 
therefore, address the inhabitants of that State in a manner tliat 
would inspire confidence, in his endeavors to win them Ijack 
into the Union. While he thus claims kindred with them, they 
would feel inclined to allow his claims, and yield to his per- 
suasion. 

Listen to his language of kindness which he addresses to 
them in his proclamation : " Fellow-citizens of my native State ! 
Let me not only admonish you, as the first magistrate of our 
common country, not to incur the 2">enalty of its laws, but use 
the influence that a father would have over his children, whom 
he saw rushing to ruin. In that paternal language, with tliat 
paternal feeling, let me tell you, my countrymen, that you are 
deluded by the men who arc either deceived themselves, (U- 
wish to deceive you." 

d. He asked authority from Congress to use force, if it should 



112 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEEST. 

Le necessary, in the collection of duties in South Carolina. 
Congress gave liim this authority, but it also passed the com- 
promise bill, which -would render the application of force un- 
necessary. He was resolute to execute the laws, even upon his 
native State, but he preferred a peaceful settlement of the diffi- 
culties, such as was accomplished by his own wisdom, and that 
of the very able men in the Cabinet, and in the Senate and 
House of Representatives. 

4. Mr. Clay must liave been greatly disappointed in the 
result of the election of 1832 ; General Jacksox receiving 210 
votes, and he only 49. Besides losing his election, which his 
friends hoped to carry by means of his " American system," he 
saw that the system itself was in danger. That system was 
made by his party one of the important issues in that election, 
and the decision of the Presidential electors seemed to be 
against that system as well as against himself. General Jack- 
son, too, in his recent message, had recommended an alteration 
of the tariff laws, a recommendation that would be very apt to 
take effect. 

Moreover, Mr. Clay, noble-spirited as he was, must have 
had some " compunctious visitings of nature," in view of the 
sectional difficulties which had been brought about by the in- 
troduction of his favorite system into the legislation of the coun- 
try. He had left the Democratic party, of which he was an 
ornament, to form a party of his own, which had been success- 
ful in carrying his favorite measure, but which had not been 
successful in the late Presidential campaign. Self-reliant as he 
M-as, he could hardly fail to have some misgivings as to the 
wisdom of his course, which had helped to bring the country 
into its present j^erilous condition. He was, without doubt, 
anxious to settle the sectional difficulties in a way honorable to 
both sections. 

When Mr. Clay introduced his compromise bill for the set- 
tlement of these difficulties, he accompanied it with the declara- 
tion " that, whether rightfully or wrongfully, the tarifT stands 
in imminent danger. If it should even be preserved during this 
session, it must fall at the next session." 

In the course of his speech, he said : " I wish to sec the 
tariff .'separated from the politics of the country, that business 



EEMARKS. 113 

men may go to work in security, ^vitli some prospect of stability 
in our laws, and without every thing being staked on the issue 
of our elections, as it were on the hazards of the die." 

In reference to the state of sectional feeling for and against 
the tariff, he said : " I am anxious to find out some principle 
of mutual accommodation, to satisfy, as far as practicable, both 
parties ; to increase the stability of our legislation ; and, at 
some distant day, not too distant when we take into view the 
magnitude of the interests which are involved, to bring down 
the rate of duties to that revenue standard for Avhich our oppo- 
nents have so long contended." 

Mr. FoKSYTH, of Georgia, in his reply to Mr. Clay, re- 
marked : " Tlie avowed object of the bill would meet with uni- 
versal approbation. It was a project to harmonize the people, 
and it could come from no better source than from the 2:entle- 
man from Kentucky ; for to no one else were we more indebted 
than to him, for the discord and the discontent which agitate 
us." " The Senator from Kentucky says the tariff is in danger ; 
aye, sir, it is at its last gasp. It has received the irremediable 
wound ; no hellebore can cure it." 

Mr. John Davis, of Massachusetts, in the House of Repre- 
sentatives, said, in reference to this bill : " But I do object to a 
compromise which destines the East to the altar. No victim, 
in my judgment, is required — none is necessary ; and yet you 
propose to bind us hand and foot, to pour out our blood on the 
altar, and sacrifice us as a burnt-offering to appease the unnatu- 
ral and unfounded discontent of the South — a discontent, I fear, 
having deeper root than the tariff", and will continue when that 
is foro-otten." 

5. Mr. Calhoux, like Mr, Clay, was worthy of the highest 
office in the gift of the nation, and, like him, he aspired after it. 
He was a leading member of the Democratic part}^, and had 
acted with Mr. Clay in promoting the war of 1812. To the 
" American system," which Mr. ClxIy had labored during three 
Presidential campaigns to establish, he was strongly opposed. 
lie was an advocate of free trade, except for the purposes of a 
revenue, and was in favor of only incidental protection to man- 
ufactures. He enjoyed the confidence of the Democratic party, 
and, indeed, of the whole country, as an able statesman and an 



114 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEKST. 

lionest iiican. It was predicted of liim at an early period, tliat 
if lie would bide liis time, lie would ccrtaiuly be President of 
the United States. 

But now in 1833, both he and Mr. Clay seemed to be as far 
off as ever from the position they both coveted. They need 
not, therefore, now be jealous of each other. They were both 
patriots ; they both hated General Jackson ; they were both 
willing to unite and save the country, and to thwart any mili- 
tary schemes for the subjugation of South Carolina. On the 
introduction of the compromise bill, Mr. Calhoun said : " He 
who loved the Union must desire to see this great agitating 
question brought to a termination. Until it should be termi- 
nated, we could not expect the restoration of peace and har- 
mony, or a sound condition of things throughout the country. 
He believed that to the unhappy divisions which had kept the 
Xorthern and Southern States apart from each other, the present 
entirely degraded condition of the country was solely attrib- 
utable." 

To Mr. Clay, and Mr. Calhoun, and General Jackson, it was 
principally owing that these sectional difficulties connected with 
the tariff were settled, and the land had rest for a time and a 
season. 

It is a remarkable fact that Massachusetts, Connecticut, and 
Rhode Island, States that had great difficulties with the General 
Government, during the Administration of Mr. Jefferson and 
Mr. IMadison, on account of their commercial interests, as set 
forth in the doings of the Hartford Convention, did not give a 
single vote for the settlement of the sectional difficulties, by the 
passage of the compromise bill proposed by Mr. Clay. 



CHAPTER X. 

ME. VAN BUEEn's ADMINISTEATIOK. 
Makcu 4, 1837— March 4, 1841. 

Me. Yan Bueen being regarded as a ITorthern man -n-itli 
Soutliern principles, was not elected upon sectional issues ; 
tlioiigli botli before and after his election such issues "were 
pressed upon the attention of the people, both North and 
South. 

In the latter part of General Jackson's Administration, and 
Mdiile the politicians Avere looking out upon the country for 
available Presidential candidates, the subject of slavery was 
forced upon the attention of Congress, in the shape of petitions 
for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. 

One of these, signed by SOO ladies from the State of Xew 
York, was presented in the House of Pepresentatives in Febru- 
ary, 1835. And another in the same month was presented 
from Massachusetts, signed by l,2'i9 male citizens, and by 
2,6J:3 ladies. Petitions like these from different portions of the 
JSTorthern States were pressed on the attention of both Houses 
of Congress for the space of four years, or until the session of 
Congress immediately before the next Presidential campaign. 
One of the last was presented by Mr. Clay, Feb. 13, 1810, as 
he said " in deference to the right of petition, which he admit- 
ted in its full force. He thought the crisis of this unfortunate 
agitation was passed ; it was certainly passed when Congress 
convened in December last. Whether the political uses which 
have since been made of it may not revive it, and revive it 



116 THE SECTIONAL COXTEOVERSY. ' ' 

in a more imposing form, lie was not prepared to say." ' The 
abolition of slavery was provided for in this petition. 

The ground taken in the petitions generally, was, that slavery 
is wrong or improper, and that as by Article 1st, section 8th, 
Con<T^rcss has power " to exercise exclusive legislation in all 
cases whatsoever over the District of Columbia," it is bound to 
abolish slavery in the District. It was in Congress declared to 
be '• the Great National Question." 

The grounds of opposition to the abolition of slavery in the 
District of Columbia are the following : " The District was 
ceded, not to the United States, but to Congress, which can 
claim no rights of sovereignty, whatever the United States may : 
it was ceded by the ordinary Legislatures of Maryland and Vir- 
ginia, which never pretended to sovereignty. We know that the 
sovereignty of each State resides in the people. The principle 
agreed on both hands, from which we are arguing, is, that Con- 
gress, in exclusive legislation over the territory, property, and 
people of this District, are competent to do in respect to terri- 
tory, jjroperty, and people of this District, whatever the Legis- 
latures of Maryland and Virginia are competent to do in respect 
to the territory, j^roperty, and people of those States respec- 
tively ; and (I add and insist) no more. Tlierefore, in order to 
show that Congress has Constitutional power to abolish the 
rights of slave property in this District, it must first be shown 
that the Legislatures of those two States have, and had, at the 
time of their cession, Constitutional power to abolish the rights 
of slave property within their limits. 

'• I can venture to say that the great body of the jurists of 
Virginia, as well as of the people, have always denied, and do 
yet deny, the Constitutional j^ower of the ordinary Legislature 
to abolish the rights of slave property, without the consent of 
the individual owners. I do not know what opinion has been 
entertained in Maryland. I only know that the same reasoning 
is equally applicable to the legal institutions of both States. 

" I presume it can hardly be imagined that Congress can 
have derived from the acts of cession of Maryland and Virginia, 
that is, by virtue of those acts alone, any other or greater powers 
of legislation over the District, than those Legislatures themselves 
had at the time of the cession ; in other words, that the grantee 



PmCKNEY S RES0LUTIOX3. 117 

has acquired by tlie grant more power than the grantor had to 
cede." 

" If the provision of the Constitution of the United States, 
giving power to Congress ' to exercise exclusive legislation, in 
all cases whatsoever, over such District as may, by the cession 
of particular States, and acceptance of Congress, become the 
seat of Government of the United States,' is to be taken as the 
only source and the only measure of the power of Congress ; if 
this provision is to be construed as conferring on Congress ab- 
solute, sovereign, despotic authority over the people of the 
District, and their private rights of property, unlimited by the 
just measure of authority that belonged to the State Legisla- 
tures by which the territory was ceded, unlimited by any con- 
sideration of the nature, purposes, and exigencies of the trust for 
which the power of exclusive legislation was given, then it will 
follow that Congress may, in its wisdom, or in its folly, abolish 
property in lands as well as in slaves ; may enact an agrarian 
law ; nay, more, may abolish the principle of property entirely, 
and establish a community of goods. ]S"ow, certainly, I do not 
apprehend any such absurd and mischievous legislation ; but it 
is fair, it is even necessary, to pursue this claim of power to its 
consequences in order to test its justice. Tlie truth is, sir, that 
a grant of j)0wer of ' exclusive legislation in all cases whatso- 
ever,' over a territory and the people in it, does not, in the just 
sense of that language, as used by American law-givers, import 
a grant of absolute, despotic, sovereign authority, or of any au- 
thority at all to assume, abolish, or impair private rights of 
property. It imports a grant of the power of ordinary legisla- 
tion. The proper as well as ordinary business of legislation is 
to regulate and secure the rights of property, never to annihilate 
them." — Speech of Mr. Leigh in the Senate., Jan. 19, 1836. 



PIXCKNEy's EESOLrTIONS. HOrSE OF EEPEESENTATIVES, 

MAT 25, 1836. 

1. Ecsolved, That Congress possesses no Constitutional au- 
thority to interfere, in any way, with the institution of slavery 
in any of the States of this Confederacy ; passed hj a vote of 



118 THE SECTIOXAL CONTROVx.iiSY. 

1S2 to ; of which C were from New England^ and 3 from 
Pennsylvania. 

2. liesolved, Tliat Congress ought not to interfere in any 
Avay with slavery in the District of Columbia ; jyassed hy a vote 
of 133 ycas^ and 45 nays. All the votes given hy Massachu- 
setts^ Yermo7it, and Hhode Island, in the negative. 

And "whereas it is extremely important and desirable that 
the agitation of this subject should be finally arrested, for the 
purpose of restoring tranquillity to the public mind, your com- 
mittee respectfully recommend the adoption of the following 
resolution, viz. : 

3, JRcsolved, Tliat all petitions, memorials, resolutions, and 
papers, relating in any way, or to any extent whatever, to the 
subject of slavery or the abolition of slavery, shall, without be- 
ing either printed or referred, be laid upon the table, and that 
no farther action whatever shall be had thereon. 

This was passed by a vote of IIT to 68. All the votes given 
by Massachusetts, Vermont, and Khode Island were in the neg- 
ative. 

VEEMOXT ANTI-SLAVEEY EESOLTJTIONS. SENATE. 

Mr. Swift, of Yermont, presented, Dec. 19, 1837, a memorial 
and resolutions from the Legislature of Yermont in relation to 
" Texas and slavery in the District of Columbia." 

Mr. King, of Alabama, said " he considered it an infamous 
libel and insult upon the South, let it come from what quarter 
it would ; it was a false statement in relation to the people of 
the South, when it charged them with disregard for the laws, 
and he expressed his surprise that gentlemen should present 
papers which they could not but feel were untrue." The me- 
morial was withdrawn for future presentation. 

It was again presented January IG. Mr. Savift said " he 
would offer no other apology than the duty he owed to the 
State. The Resolutions spoke for themselves ; nor did Yermont 
require him to vindicate them on this lloor. He expressed his 
regret, however, that they should have been so harshly assailed 
as they had been, Xot only the sentiments contained in them, 
but the motives of those who adopted them, had been subjects 
of unjust censure and reproach." 



SECESSION OF SOUTIIEEN MEMBERS. 119 

Mr. Peeston, of South Carolina, " j)resumed tlic document 
would not liavG been presented unless under authority of com- 
mand in obedience to higher power, where the servant could 
exercise no discretion. Coming from a sovereign State, wc 
were, he presumed, bound to treat it with respect and defer- 
ence. Here was a report wantonly presented, characterized by 
language which, if used by an individual or senator of this body, 
would be rejected with disdain. In it the South is charged 
with immorality and irreligion ; and when with becoming dignity 
we repel the charge, we are ' uncourteous ' and ' offensive ' in 
our language ; while we are stigmatized as debauched, sen- 
sual, immoral, sinful, God-offending creatures; and when wc 
speak of fanatics and incendiaries, we are rebuked and chidden. 
"Was this fair ? Was this projDcr ? " 

norSE. DECEMBER 20, 1837. 

The most angry and portentous debate which had yet taken * 
place in Congress occurred at this time in the House of EejDre- 
sentatives. It was brought on by Mr. Willlim Slabe, of Ver- 
mont, who, besides presenting petitions of the usual abolition 
character, and moving to refer them to a committee, moved their 
reference to a select committee, with instructions to report a bill 
in conformity to their prayer. This motion, inflammatory and 
irritating in itself, and without practical legislative object, as 
the great majority of the House was known to be opposed to it, 
was rendered still more exasperating by the manner of support- 
ing it. The mover entered into a general disquisition on the 
subject of slavery, all denunciatory, and was proceeding to 
speak upon it in the State of Yirginia, and other States, in the 
same spirit, when Mr. Legaee, of South Carolina, interposed, 
and- — ■ 

" Hoped the gentleman from Yermont would allow him to 
make a few remarks before he proceeded further. He sincerely 
hoped that gentleman would consider well what he was about 
before he ventured on such ground, and that he would take 
time to consider what might be its probable consequences. He 
solemnly entreated him to reflect on the possible results of such 
a course, which involved the interests of a nation and a conti- 



120 TIIK SECTIONAI. CONTKOVEKST. 

nent. lie %youlJ warn liini, not in tlic langnagc of defiance, 
■w'liich all brave and wise men despised, but he would warn him 
in the language of a solemn sense of duty, that if there was ' a 
spirit aroused in the Is^orth in relation to this subject,' that 
spirit would encounter another spirit in the Soiith full as stub- 
born. He would tell them that, when this question M-as forced 
upon the people of the South, they would be ready to take up 
the gauntlet. lie concluded by urging on the gentleman from 
Yermont to ponder well on his course before he A'entured to 
proceed." 

Mr, Slade continued his remarks, when Mr. Dawson, of 
Georgia, asked him for the floor, that he might move an ad- 
journment — evidently to carry off the storm which he saw 
rising. Mr. Slade refused to yield it ; so the motion to adjourn 
could not be made. Mr. Slade continued, and was proceeding 
to answer his own inquiry, put to himself — ichat was slavery ? 
when Mr. Dawson again asked for the floor, to make his motion 
of adjournment. Mr, Slade refused it : a visible commotion be- 
gan to pervade the House — members rising, clustering together, 
and talking with animation ; Mr. Slade continued, and was about 
reading a judicial opinion in one of the Southern States which 
defined a slave to be a chattel, when Mr. "Wise called him to 
order for speaking beside the question — the question being upon 
the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and Mr. 
Slade's remarks going to its legal character, as property in a 
State, 

The Speaker, Mr. John White, of Kentucky, sustained the 
call, saying it was not in order to discuss the subject of slavery 
in any of the States. Mr. Slade denied that he was doing so, 
and said he was merely quoting a Southern judicial decision as 
he might quote a legal opinion delivered in Great Britain. Mr. 
Robertson, of Yirginia, moved that the House adjourn. Tlie 
Speaker pronounced the motion (and correctly) out of order, as 
the member from Yermont was in possession of the floor and 
addressing the House. He would, however, suggest to the 
member from Yermont, who could not but observe the state of 
the House, to confine himself strictly to the subject of his mo- 
tion, Mr. Slade went on at great length, when Mr. Petrikin, 
of Pennsylvania, called him to order; but the Chair did not 



SECESSION OF SOUTHERN MEMBERS. 121 

sustain the call. Mr. Slade Avent on, quoting from the Decla- 
ration of Independence, and the Constitutions of the several 
States, and had got to that of Virginia, when Mr. Wise called 
him to order for reading papers without the leave of the House. 
The Speaker decided that no paper objected to could be read 
without the leave of the House. Mr. Wise then said : 

" That the gentleman had wantonly discussed the abstract 
question of slavery, going back to the very first day of the crea- 
tion, instead of slavery as it existed in the District, and the 
powers and duties of Congress in relation to it. He was now 
examining the State Constitutions to show that as it existed in 
the States it was against them, and against the laws of God and 
man. Tliis was out of order." 

Mr. Slade explained, and argued in vindication of his course, 
and was about to read a memorial of Dr. Franklin, and an 
opinion of Mr. Madison on the subject of slavery, vrhcn the 
reading was objected to by Mr. Griffin, of South Carolina; 
and the Speaker decided they could not be read without the 
permission of the House. Mr. Slade, without asking the per- 
mission of the House, which he knew would not be granted, 
assumed to understand the prohibition as extending only to him- 
self personally, said : ^^ Then I send the?7i to ihe clerh ; let Mm 
read them.'''' The Speaker decided that this was equally against 
the rule. Then Mr. Griffin withdrew the objection, and Mr. 
Slade proceeded to read the papers, and to comment uj)on them 
as he went on, and was about to go back to the State of Vir- 
ginia, and show what had been the feeling there on the subject 
of slavery previous to the date of Dr. Franklin's memorial : 

Mr. RiiETT, of South Carolina, inquired of the Chair what 
the opinions of Virginia fifty years ago had to do with the case *? 
The Speaker was about to reply, when Mr. Wise rose with 
warmth, and said : " He has discussed the whole abstract 
question of slavery ; of slavery in my own district ; and I now 
ask all my colleagues to retire with me from this hall." Mr. 
Slade reminded the Speaker that he had not yielded the floor ; 
but his progress was impeded by the condition of the House, 
and the many exclamations of members, among whom Mr. 
Halsey, of Georgia, was heard calling on the Georgia delega- 
tion to withdraw with him ; and Mr. Ehett was heard pro- 



122 TUE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEEST. 

claiming that the South Carolina members had already cou- 
siilted together, and agreed to have a meeting at three o'clock 
in the committee room of the District of Columbia. Ilere the 
Speaker interposed to calm the House, standing up in his place 
and saying : 

" The gentleman from Vermont had been reminded by the 
Chair that the discussion of slavery, as existing withiu the 
States, Avas not in order ; when he was desirous to read a paper 
and it vras objected to, the Chair had stopped him ; but the 
objection had been withdrawn, and Mr. Slade had been suffered 
to proceed ; he was now about to read another paper, and ob- 
jection was made ; the Chair would, therefore, take the ques- 
tion on permitting it to be read." 

Many members rose, all addressing the Chair at the same 
time, and many members leaving the hall, and a general scene 
of noise and confusion prevailing. Mr. Rhett succeeded in 
raising his voice above the roar of the tempest which raged in 
the House, and invited the entire delegations from all the slave 
States to retire from the hall forthwith, and meet in the com- 
mittee room of the District of Columbia. The Speaker again 
essayed to calm the House, and again standing up in his place, 
he recapitidated his attempts to preserve order, and vindicated 
the correctness of his own conduct, seemingly impugned by 
many: "What his personal feelings were on the subject (he 
was from a slave State) might easily be conjectured. He had 
endeavored to enforce the rules. Had it been in his power to 
restrain the discussion, he should promptly have exercised the 
power ; but it was not." Mr. Slade, continuing, said the paper 
which he wished to read was of the Continental Congress of 
1774. The Speaker was about to put the question on leave, 
when Mr. Cost Johnson, of Maryland, inquired whether it 
would be in order to force the House to vote that the member 
from Yermont be not permitted to proceed? The Sj^eaker 
replied it would not. Tlien Mr. Jazsies J. McKay, of Xorth 
Carolina — a clear, cool-headed, sagacious man — interposed the 
objection which headed Mr. Slade. There was a rule of the 
Plouse, that when a member was called to order he should take 
his seat ; and if decided to be out of order, he should not be 
allowed to speak again, except on leave of the House. Mr. 



I 



SECESSION OF SOUTIIEEN IVIEMBEES. 123: 

McKay judged this to be a proper occasion for tlie enforcement 
of that rule ; and stood up and said : 

" That the gentleman had been pronounced out of order in 
discussing slavery in the States ; and the rule declared that 
when a member was so pronounced by the Chair, he should 
take his seat, and if any one objected to his proceeding again, he 
should not do so unless by leave of the House. Mr. McKay 
did now object to the gentleman from Vermont proceeding any 
further." 

Redoubled noise and confusion ensued, a crowd of mem- 
bers rising and speaking at once, who eventually yielded to the 
resounding blows of the Speaker's hammer upon the lid of his 
desk, and his apparent desire to read something to the House, 
as he held a book (recognized to be that of the rules) in his 
hand. Obtaining quiet so as to enable himself to be heard, he 
read the rule referred to by Mr. McKay ; and said that, as ob- 
jection had now for the first time been made under that rule to 
the gentleman's resuming his speech, the Chair decided that he 
could not do so without the leave of the House. Mr. Slade 
attem]3ted to go on : the Speaker directed him to take his seat 
until the question of leave .should be put. Then Mr. Slade, 
still keeping on his feet, asked leave to proceed as in order, 
saying he would not discuss slavery in Yirginia. On that ques- 
tion, Mr. Allen, of Yermont, asked the yeas and nays. Mr. 
RENcnEK, of ISTorth Carolina, moved an adjournment. Mr. 
Adams, and many others, demanded the yeas and nays on this 
motion, which were ordered, and resulted in 106 yeas and C3-" 
nays — some fifty or sixty members having withdrawn. This 
opposition to adjournment was one of the worst features of that 
unhappy day's work ; the only effect of keeping the House to- 
gether being to increase irritation, and multiply the chances for 
an outl^reak. From the beginning, Southern members had been 
in favor of it, and essayed to accomplish it, but were prevented 
by the tenacity with which Mr. Slade kept possession of the 
floor ; and now, at last, when it was time to adjourn any way 
— when the House was in a condition in which no good could 
be expected, and great harm might be apprehended, there were 
sixty-three members — being nearly one-third of the House — 
willing to continue it in session. They were : 



12-1 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEESY. 

" Messrs. Adajis, Alexakdek, II. Allen, J. "W. Allen, Ay- 
CKiGG, Bell, Biddle, Bond, Bokden, Briggs, W. B. Calhoun, 
Coffin, Cokwin, Ckanston, Curtis, Cushing, Darlington, 
Davies, Dunn, Evans, Everett, Ewlng, J. Fletciiee, Fill- 
more, GooDE, Grennell, Haley, Hall, Hastings, Henry, 
Herod, Hoffman, Lincoln, Marvin, S. Mason, Maxwell, 
McKennan, Milligan, M. Morris, C. Moeris, Nayloe, Noyes, 
Ogle, Paementer, Patterson, Peck, Phillips, Potts, Potter, 
Kariden, pANDOLPn, Reed, Eidgway, Ivussel, Sheffer, Sibley, 
Slade, Stratton, Tillingiiast, Toland, a. S. White, J. "White, 
E. Whittlesey — 63. 

" The House then stood adjourned ; and as the adjournment 
was being pronounced, Mr. Cajsipbell, of South Carolina, stood 
up on a chair, and calling for the attention of the members, 
said : 

" He had been appointed, as one of the Southern delegation, 
to announce that all those gentlemen who represented slave- 
holding States, were invited to attend the meeting now being 
lield in the District Committee room." 

Members from the slaveholding States had repaired in large 
numbers to the room in the basement, where they were invited 
to meet. Various passions agitated them — some violent. Ex- 
treme propositions were suggested, of which Mr. ItiiETT, of 
South Carolina, in a letter to his constituents, gave a full ac- 
count of his o"\\'n — thus : 

" In a private and friendly letter to the editor of the Charles- 
ton Mercur}", amongst other events accompanying the memor- 
able secession of the Southern members from the hall of the 
House of Representatives, I stated to him, that I had prepared 
two resolutions, drawn as amendments to the motion of the 
member from Yermont, whilst he was discussing the institution 
•of slavery in the South, ' declaring that the Constitution having 
failed to protect the South in the peaceable possession and en- 
joyment of their rights and peculiar institutions, it was expe- 
dient that the Union should be dissolved ; and the other, ap- 
pointing a committee of two members from each State to report 
upon the best means of peaceably dissolving it.' Tliey were 
intended as amendments to a motion, to refer with instructions 
to report a bill, abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia. 



SECESSION OF SOUTHERN MEMBERS. 125 

" I expected tliem to share the fate which inevitably a-waited 
the original motion, so soon as the floor conld liave been ob- 
tained, viz., to be laid upon the table. My design in presentin"- 
them was to place before Congress and the people, what, in my 
opinion, was the true issue upon this great and vital question ; 
and to point out the course of policy by which it should be met 
by the Southern States. 

" But extreme coimsels did not prevail. There were mem- 
bers present who well considered that although the provocation 
was great, and the number voting for such a firebrand motion 
was deplorably large, yet it was but little more than the one-fourth 
of the House, and decidedly less than one-half of the members 
from the Free States ; so that, even if left to the Free State vote 
alone, the motion would have been rejected. But the motion 
itself, and the manner in which it was supported, was most re- 
prehensible ; necessarily leading to disorder in the House, the 
destruction of its harmony and capacity for useful legislation, 
tending to a sectional segregation of the members, the alienation 
of feeling between the l^orth and the South, and alarm to all 
the slaveholding States. Tlie evil required a remedy, but not 
the remedy of breaking up the Union ; but one which might 
prevent the like in future, while administering a rebuke upon 
the past. That remedy was found in adopting a proposition to 
be oifered to the House, which, if agreed to, would close the 
door against any discussion upon abolition petitions in future, 
and assimilate the proceedings of the House in that j^articular 
to those of the Senate. This proposition was put into the hands 
of Mr. Patton, of Yirginia, to be offered as an amendment to 
the rules at the opening of the House the next morning. It 
was in these words : 

" ''liesolved, That all petitions, memorials, and papers, touch- 
ing the abolition of slavery, or the buying, selling, or transfer- 
ring of slaves in any State, District, or Territory of the United 
States, be laid on the table, without being debated, printed, 
read, or referred, and that no further action whatever shall be 
had thereon.' 

"Accordingly, at the opening of the House, Mr. Patton 
asked leave to submit the resolution, which was read for in- 
formation. Mr. Adams objected to the grant of leave. Mr. 



126 niE SECTIONAL CONTROVEKST. 

Patton then moved a suspension of the rules, wliidi motion 
required two-tliirds to sustain it ; and, unless obtained, this 
.salutary remedy for an alarming evil (which was already in 
force in the Senate) could not be offered. It was a test motion, 
and on which the opponents of abolition agitation in the House 
required all their strength ; for, unless two to one, they were 
defeated. Happily, the two to one were ready, and on taking 
the yeas and nays, demanded by an abolition member, (to keep 
his friends to the track, and to hold the free State anti-abolition- 
ists to their responsibility at home,) the result stood 135 yeas to 
60 nays ; the full two-thirds and fifteen over." — Benton's Thirty 
Years' Vine, vol. ii., p. 150. 

ME. CxiLHOUN'S KESOLUTIONS — FEIDAT, JANUARY 12, 1838. 

1. J2esolved, That, in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, 
the States adopting the same acted, severally, as free, independ- 
ent, and sovereign States ; and that each for itself, by its own 
voluntary assent, entered the Union with the view to its in- 
creased security against all dangers, domestic as well as foreign, 
and the more perfect and secure enjoyment of its advantages — 
natural, political, and social. 

2. J2esolved, That, in delegating a portion of their powers to 
be exercised by the Federal Government, the States retained, 
severally, the exclusive and sole right over their own domestic 
iustitutions and police, to the full extent to which those powers 
were not thus delegated, and are alone responsible for them ; 
and that any intermeddling of any one or more States, or a 
combination of their citizens, with the domestic institutions and 
police of the others, on any ground, political, moral, or religious, 
or under any pretext whatever, with the view to their altera- 
tion or subversion, is not warranted by the Constitution, tending 
to endanger the domestic peace and tranquillity of the States 
interfered with, subversive of the objects for which the Consti- 
tution was formed, and, by necessary consequence, tending to 
weaken and destroy the Union itself. 

3. liesolved, Tliat this Government was instituted and 
adopted by the several States of this Union as a common agent, 
in order to carry into effect the powers which they had dele- 



ME. Calhoun's eesolutioxs. 127 

gated by the Constitution for their mntnal secnritj and pros- 
perity, and that, in fulfihnent of this high and sacred trust, this 
Government is bound so to exercise its powers, as not to inter- 
fere with the stability and security of the domestic institutions 
of the States that compose the Union ; and tliat it is the solemn 
duty of the Government to resist, to the extent of its constitu- 
tional power, all attempts by one portion of the Union to use 
it as an instrument to attack the domestic institutions of another, 
or to weaken or destroy such institutions. 

4. Eesolvc-d, That domestic slavery, as it exists in the South- 
ern and Western States of this Union, composes an important 
part of their domestic institutions, inherited from their ancestors, 
and existing at the adoption of the Constitution, by which it is 
recognized as constituting an important element in the appor- 
tionment of powers among the States, and that no change of 
opinion or feeling on the part of the other States of the Union 
in relation to it, can justify them or their citizens in open and 
systematic attacks thereon, with the view to its overthrow ; and 
that all such attacks are in manifest violation of the mutual and 
solemn pledge to protect and defend each other, given by the 
States respectively, on entering into the Constitutional compact 
wliich formed the Union, and as such are a manifest breach of 
faith, and a violation of the most solemn obligations. 

5. Besolved, Tliat the interference by the citizens of any of 
the States, with the view to the abolition of slavery in this 
District, is endangering the rights and security of the people of 
the District, and that any act or measure of Congress designed 
to abolish slavery in this District, would be a violation of the 
faith implied in the cessions by the States of Virginia and Mary- 
land, a just cause of alarm to the people of the. slaveholding 
States, and have a direct and inevitable tendency to disturl) 
and endanger the Union. 

G. And Bcsolved, That any attempt of Congress to abolish 
slavery in any Territory of the United States in which it exists, 
would create serious alarm and just apprehension in the States 
sustaining that domestic institution ; would be a violation of 
good faith towards the inhabitants of any such Territory who 
have been permitted to settle with, and hold slaves therein, be- 
cause the people of any such Territory have not asked for the 



128 THE SECTIONAL COXTKOVEEST. 

abolition of slavery therein, and because, when any such Terri- 
tory shall be admitted into the Union as a State, the people 
thereof will be entitled to decide that question exclusively for 
themselves. 

The final vote upon the adoption of these resolutions, was : 
Yeas — Messrs. Allen, Bayaed, Benton, Black, Bkown, 
Bl'chanan, Caluoun, Clay of Alabama, Clay of Ky., Ckit- 

TENDEN, CUTHBERT, FuLTON, GeUNDY, IIuBBAED, KiNG, LuMPKIN, 

Lyon, Mekrick, I^s^icholas, Niles, Xorvell, Pierce, Preston, 
Rives, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Smith of Connecticut, Strange, 
Tipton, Walker, "White, Williams, AVright, Young — 35. 

Nays — Messrs. Clayton, of Delaware, Davis, Knight, Mc- 
Kean, of Pennsylvania, Prentiss, Robbins, Smith, of Indiana, 
Swift, and Webster — 9. 

Massachusetts, Yermont, and Rhode Island were the only 
States that voted in the negative. 

REilARKS. 

1. At the period of which this chapter treats, the sentiments 
of the people in the several Northern States had undergone a 
great change on the subject of slavery, since the formation of 
the Federal Constitution, and especially since the Declaration 
of Independence. While the people of those States possessed 
slaves, they could form an estimate of the advantages and dis- 
advantages, the rectitude or the impropriety of slavery, from 
their own observation of its practical workings. Before the 
American Revolution, some of the best Christians in the North- 
ern section owned slaves, as now some of the best Christians at 
the South do. Slavery was sanctioned by the British Govern- 
ment, and by the Colonial Legislatures ; by statesmen and by 
clergymen. The relations of " superiors, inferiors, and equals," 
and the correlative duties of masters and servants were recog- 
nized, not only in catechisms, but in the public instructions of 
the sanctuary. In 17-19, the celebrated Wuitefield thus wrote : 
" One negro has been given me ; some more I propose to pur- 
chase this week." " Tliis confirms me in the opinion that 
Georgia never can be a flourishing province, without negroes 
are allowed." 



KEMAKKS. 129 

But at this period in Yermont, and in Massacliusetts, "udierc 
it had ceased to exist for near]}^ sixty years or for two genera- 
tions, and in other Korthern States, there were those who ho- 
lieved that they understood the subject of slavery better than 
those in the Southern States who had seen its practical work- 
ings. 

2. There were at the time several classes of abolitionists, who 
urged Congress to emancipate the slaves in the District of Co- 
lumbia : 

a. Those who were under the influence of a generous, yet 
unreflecting philanthropy, and who, from their disregard of con- 
stitutional rights and obligations, were characterized as having 
" hearts larger than their heads." 

h. Those who believed that the Constitution authorized the 
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and who felt 
disposed to use all constitutionl means to abolish slavery through- 
out the land. 

c. Those who would free the slaves on the ground of natural 
rights as stated in the Declaration of Independence, which they 
placed on a level with the Constitution, or above it. Such de- 
clared that the " Federal Constitution has neither any moral 
nor political right to tolerate slavery in any of the States be- 
longing to the Federal Union, for a single day." 

d. Those who, from a real or a pretended regard for the 
right of petition, signed petitions to vindicate that right ; while 
they professed to care very little about the object petitioned 
for. 

e. Those who wished to promote political agitation for party 
purposes. 

f. Tliose who hated slavery and slaveholders ; and who, l)y 
memorials and petitions, could vent their wrath in the language 
of vituperation. 

Petitioning was the fashion of the times in some of the States. 
Jonx QuixcY Adams, the champion of the l^ortli, declared on 
one occasion in Congress, that he had before him 350 petitions 
on which were from 34,000 to 35,000 names. 

3. In opposition to these petitions and memorials, it was said 
in Congress and elsewhere : 

a. That they were an abuse of the right granted by the Con- 



130 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEKSY. 

stitution " peaceably to assemble and j^ctition for tlic redress of 
grievances," viz., their own grievances. Slavery was no new 
thing, but the existence of slavery as an institution recognized 
by the Constitution, and the right of proi^erty in slaves as re- 
cognized in the Constitution, is not a grievance under the Con- 
stitution to the people of Vermont. " The oppressed subject 
has a right to j^ctition Government for the redress of griev- 
ances." But the existence of slavery in the District of Colum- 
bia is not a grievance to the people of Yermont ; but the abo- 
lition of slavery, in opposition to the wishes of slaveholders in 
the District of Columbia, would be a grievance to them. In 
the early daj's of the Republic, the existence of slavery in the 
South was not thought of as a " grievance." 

1). That a petition for a general object like that is impcrti- 
nent) inasmiich as Congress is better acquainted with the subject 
than the men, women, and children, who have never been in 
the District. Such a petition implies that Congress will not 
attend to its duties without admonition. 

c. That the .arguments used against slavery in the District 
of Columbia are covertly or openly intended to operate against 
slavery clse^'herc ; and that the abolition of slavery in the Dis- 
trict would be the entering wedge to the abolition of slavery in 
the States, as soon as Congress could get the power, by altering 
the Constitution. 

d. That the arguments or denunciations against slavery have 
the effect to create prejudice against slaveholders and slave- 
Iiolding States. 

c. That some of these petitions contain falsehoods, and slan- 
ders, and insulting statements, concerning slaveholders, and arc 
therefore adapted to produce a spirit of disunion. 

f. Tliat some of the petitions were got up in order to place 
certain members of Congress in the awkward position of pre- 
senting petitions to which they were opposed. 

4. At the first presentation of these petitions in Congress, the 
general sentiment in both Houses was opposed to them, as was 
the sentiment of the great Northern community Abolitionists 
were regarded with distrust or abhorrence. But in time anti- 
slavery sentiments so far prevailed, that candidates found an 
appeal to sectional feelings an effectual way to secure an elec- 



REMAUKS. 131 

tioii. And after they had secured an election by such an ap- 
peal, they felt themselves obliged to carry out in Congress the 
principles upon Avhich they were elected. 

5. In Congress, there was a great diversity of opinion as to 
what course should be taken with those petitions : 

a. Some of the petitions were received and reported on ad- 
versely without producing any beneficial effect, or lessening the 
number of petitions. — See Mr. Hives' speech, Dec. 1837. 

h. Some of them were received and laid on the table. 

c. Some of them were disposed of by a motion to lay the 
(question of reception on the table. 

Kone of these modes satisfied the anti-slavery views of the 
Xorthern delegations in Congress ; and many even of the mem- 
bers who were opposed to the prayer of the petitioners, were 
disposed to complain that the right of petition was restricted 
by the latter course. 

G. In February, Mr. Jonx Quincy Adams, who, like some 
others in or out of the House, was disposed to magnify the right 
of petition above some other rights, presented a petition from 
"some ladies in Fredericksburg, Virginia," of whom Mr. Pat- 
Tojf, member from that place, declared that he believed all of 
them to be free negroes of a bad character. Mr. Adams also 
tendered a petition from twenty -two persons, who declared 
themselves to be slaves. And (June, 1838) he referred to his 
tendering such a petition. This act of his was severely con- 
demned by *individuals in the House. lie escaped a vote of 
censure which was threatened. But the House voted " That 
slaves do not possess the right of petition, secured to the people 
of the United States by the Constitution." The A'ote was 1G2 in 
the affirmative and IS in the negative. 

7. A portion of the multitude of petitions ofi'ered during the 
Administration of Mr. Yan Bueen, were got up at the instiga- 
tion of members of Congress, who for one reason and another 
took pleasure in presenting them. It was supposed that Mr. 
Adams, under the influence of a deep resentment against the 
South, took a pleasure in presenting petitions for objects for 
which he himself would not vote. 

While the abolitionists were thus spreading their arguments 
and denunciations agaiust slavery before the representatives ot 



132 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEESY. 

the nation at "Washington, and also before the State Legislatures 
at the Xortli, they were sending incendiary puhlications through 
the Southern States by mail and otherwise. As these publica- 
tions sprang from bitter sectional feelings at the North, so they 
created bitter sectional feelings at the South. President Jack- 
sox, in his message, Dec. 1835, thus introduced the subject to 
the notice of Congress : " I must also invite your attention to 
the painful excitement produced in the South, by attempts to 
circulate through the mails inflammatory appeals addressed 
to the jjassions of the slaves, in prints and in various publica- 
tions calculated to stimulate them to insurrection, and to pro- 
duce all the horrors of a civil war." 

The effect of these petitions signed by hundreds of thou- 
sands of petitioners was disastrous in producing a bitter sec- 
tional spirit throughout the country. 

In justice to the ISTortli it ouglit to be added, that some of 
the ablest and best men in that section were utterly opposed to 
the movement, as wrong in the end aimed at, wrong in the 
means used, and wrong in the spirit with which it was con- 
ducted. And some of them took the ground that they were 
wrong as a violation of the principles of international law which 
ought to control the several States in their relations to each 
other as sovereignties. 

There were those who felt that the abolition societies in the 
several States ought to be suppressed by State authority. They 
had the same opinion of them which General "WAsniNGTON ex- 
pressed concerning the self-constituted societies in 1794. They 
considered their influence upon the country through their lec- 
tures and publications as malign. 



CHAPTER XI. 

GENERAL "WTLLIA:!*! IIENKY H^VEKISON AKD JOHN TTLEE. 
MAHcn 4, 1S41— March 4, 1S45. 

Genekal Hakrison was elected by the Wliig party, and by 
the votes of Northern States. There was a wide-sjDread enthu- 
siasm in his favor, created, it was said, to some extent, by log 
cabins, coon-skins, hard cider, and the influence of banks. So 
strong were the party feelings, that sectional considerations were, 
for the time, ignored. Both General Harrison and Mr. Tyler 
were natives of A^rginia. On the death of the former, abont a 
month after his inanguration, the latter constitutionally became 
President. 

During his administration, sectional differences of opinion 
manifested themselves both in Congress and in the country at 
large. The bankrupt bill, an increase of the tariff, the distribu- 
tion of the proceeds of the public lands, the establishment of a 
national bank, the repeal of the sub-treasury, were generally 
favored by Northern members and opposed by Southern. 

annexation or texas. 

But the principal source of sectional feeling during the ad- 
ministration of President Tyler, was the annexation of Texas, 
of which he was strongly in favor. Texas had belonged to the 
United States from 1803, when Louisiana was ceded, until 1819, 
when, by a great political mistake, it was dismembered from 
the United States, and attached to Mexico. The people of 
Texas were in favor of annexation. It would add to the strength 
of the United States, and give them, with some exceptions, the 
monopoly of the cotton trade of the world. It would help to 



134 THE SECTIOXAL" CONTROVERSY. 

keep the slave States on an equality -with the non-slave States. 
It would prevent the existence of a dangerous rival on our bor- 
ders, wlio might make treaties with Great Britain to our injury. 
Mr. Adams, when President, aided by Mr. Clay, Secretary of 
State, in 1S25, and then again in 1827, endeavored to secure 
the annexation of Texas. General Jackson, aided by Mr. A^an 
BuREN, Secretary of State, in 1829 ; and again in 1833, aided 
by his Secretary of State, Mr. Livingston ; and again in 1835, 
aided by his Secretary of State, Mr. Forsyth, endeavored to 
secure the annexation of Texas. For this purpose he offered 
live millions of dollars. It would be of great commercial 
advantage to the Union, which otherwise a foreign nation would 
enjoy. The sentiment of the country, taken as a Avholc, was in 
favor of annexation. 

In opposition, it was asserted that the measure was uncon- 
stitutional ; that it would involve the country izi war with 
Mexico ; that it would increase the slave poj)ulation of the 
country. Joun Quincy Adams declared in substance that, if 
Texas were free from slavery, and the consent of Mexico were 
obtained, he would vote for the annexation. 

So high did sectional feeling rise while the question was 
pending, that, in some of the Southern States, the motto was 
" Texas or disunion ; " while, in some of the I^orthern States, 
tens of thousands of names were affixed to petitions against tlic 
measure. In Massachusetts, so strong was the opposition, that 
the Senate passed a resolution censuring their Senators in Con- 
gress, Messrs. Bates and Choate. Indeed, the spirit manifested 
in that State came up to the measure of the spirit of dismiion 
on the purchase and admission of Louisiana. 

The annexation of Texas was a measure properly belonging 
to Mr. Tylkr's administration, though it was not completed 
until Mr. Polk was in the Presidential chair, December IG, 
1845. Tlic final vote in the Senate was 31 in favor, 14 against ; 
and in the House, 111 in favor and 50 against. 

On February 5, 1814, Mr. Beardsley, of New York, present- 
ed a petition from sundry citizens of ISTew York, praying for an 
amendment to the Constitution, so as to effect the abolition of 
slavery in the Southern States. Mr. Adams presented the reso- 
lutions of the Legislature of Massachusetts, " asking for an 
amendment to the Constitution, so as to exclude that portion of 



ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 135 

the rei^resentation of tlie Soutlieni States wliicli is based on tlieir 
slave population." In the Senate, Mr. Bates presented the 
same resolves of the Massachusetts Legislature. The Senate 
refused to print them, . 

Marcli 22, ISii.— " Mr. Dkomgoole, of Yirginia, from the 
select committee on the resolutions of the Legislatures of Yir- 
ginia and Alabama on the proposed amendment to the Consti- 
tution so as to prevent slave representation, which M'as suggested 
bj resolutions from the Legislature of Massachusetts, made a 
report, accompanied by several resolutions, on wliich he called 
for the yeas and nays, and demanded the jirevious cpiestion." 

'-'- Resolved hy the House of Hepreseoitatives of tJie United 
States, That the rule established in the Constitution as the basis of 
representation and direct taxation, resulting from a spirit of con- 
cession and compromise essential to the formation and preserva- 
tion of the Union of the States, ought to be held sacred by the 
friends of the Union." This resolution passed by 158 yeas, 18 
nays. 

" Resolved, That no proposition to alter or amend the Consti- 
tution, in relation to representation or direct taxation among the 
States, ought to be recommended by Congress, but that every 
such proposition ought to be promptly and decisively con- 
demned." This resolve was passed by a vote of 127 yeas, 41 
nays. 

In the preamble to the report, the committee say : " This 
proposition (of Massachusetts) is strongly and unanimously con- 
denmed by the General Assembly of Yirginia, and is regarded, 
in truth, as a proposition virtually to dissolve the Union. The 
connnittee, believing that the basis of representation and direct 
taxation, as regulated in the Constitution, was the result of a 
spirit of concession and compromise which was indispensable to 
the Union of the States, and to the formation and ratification of 
that Constitution as ordained and established, are of opinion 
that the proposed alteration of the compromise would produce 
a peaceable or violent dissolution of the Union." 

EEaiAEKS. 

1. After the election of General Hakkison, and during the 
next four years, petitions for the abolition of slavery in the Dis- 



136 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEESY. 

trict of Columbia became comparatively infrequent. "Why was 
this ? Was it because the public sensibility had become im- 
paired by being so long wrought upon ? Or was it because the 
anti-slavery leaders in the agitation found a more exciting topic 
in Texas ? Or was it because the "VVhigs, in Congress and out 
of Congress, having by the election come into power, no longer 
found agitation desirable ? Mr. Clay was not in favor of anti- 
slavery agitation, though some of his party had been. 

2. The persistent opposition to the annexation of Texas 
sprang from opposition to slavery, and the opposition to slavery 
was, to a greater or less extent, owing to a reluctance to in- 
creasing the political power of the Southern section of the 
country. 

8. The resolution of the Massachusetts Legislature, instruct- 
ing their Senators, and requesting the representatives of that 
State to vote for such an amendment of the Constitution as will 
allow only free persons to be represented, or, in other words, to 
abrogate slave I'epresentation, excited deep dissatisfactioii in 
Congress. 

Mr. King, of the Senate, said : " He could not but regret 
that it had become the duty of the honorable Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Bates) to present to the Senate a proposition 
from the Legislature of his State to dissolve the Union. Was 
there a man within the hearing of his voice that believed, for 
one moment, that such an amendment could be made ? and if 
it could be, by any possibility, that the Federal Government 
would last twenty-four hours after it was made ? It is a resolu- 
tion framed almost identically like that which had been con- 
cocted by inhabitants of Massachusetts, in another period in the 
history of this Government. It is such as was during the last 
Avar passed by the Hartford Convention. * * That tiie General 
Assembly of Massachusetts should take up one of these resolu- 
tions, after so many attempts to explain them away, and get 
clear of the odium connected with them, and to adopt its very 
Avords, showed a feeling of hostility to an institution which, if 
persisted in, was calculated to sap the very foundations of the 
Government itself." 



CHAPTER XIL 

JAMES K. folk's ADMESriSTEATTOS'. 
March 4, 1845— March 4, 1849. 

Me. Polk was elected President by 170 electoral votes, 
against 105 cast for Mr. Clay. The Southern States generally 
voted for the former. He was in favor of a strict construction 
of the Constitution in opposition to one that is broad or loose. 
In his inaugural address, he spoke in the following terms on 
that point : " It will be my first care to administer the Govern- 
ment in the true spirit of that instrument, and to assume no 
powers not expressly or clearly implied in its terms. Tlie Gov- 
ernment of the United States is one of delegated and limited 
powers ; and it is by a strict adherence to the clearly granted 
powers, and by abstaining from the exercise of doubtful or un- 
authorized imj)lied powers, tliat we have the only sure guar- 
antee against the recurrence of those unfortunate collisions be- 
tween the Federal and State authorities which have, occasion- 
ally, so much disturbed the harmony of our system, and even 
threatened the perpetuity of our glorious Union." " One great 
object of the Constitution was to restrain majorities from op- 
pressing minorities, or encroaching on their just rights. Minor- 
ities have a right to appeal to the Constitution, as a shield 
against such oppression." 

THE TAEIFF OF 184:6. 

The compromise tariff of 1833, according to the provisions 
of the bill, continued in operation until ISil. In that year the 
Home League was formed, with the same object in view as the 



138 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEKSY. 

Harrisburg Convention, namely, restoring liigli duties. Tlie 
doctrines of the Home League Averc approved by Mr. Clay and 
his political friends. A bill was brought in, -which passed in 
1842. Tliis bill Avas denounced by Mr. CALnorx. In his 
speech he said : " I shall not dwell on the fact that it openly 
violates the comproniise act, and the pledges given by its 
author and by Governor Davis of Massachusetts, that if the 
South would adhere to the compromise, while it was operating 
favorably for the manufacturers, they would stand by it when 
it came to operate favorably for the South. I dwell not on 
those double breaches of plighted faith, although they are of a 
serious character, and likely to exercise a very pernicious influence 
over our future legislation, by preventing amicable adjustments 
of questions that may hereafter threaten the peace of the coun- 
try." Mr. McDuFFiE characterized the tarifi* law of 18-i2 as " a 
foul and faithless violation of the compromise act." Mr. Clay 
and the manufacturers defended the measures as necessary to 
supply the wants of Government, which they regarded as par- 
amount to other considerations. 

In his message, Dec, 1845, President Polk recommended a 
revision of the Tariff laws. lie declared that " the object of im- 
posing duties on imports should be to raise a revenue to pay 
the necessary expenses of the Government. Congress may, un- 
doubtedly, in the exercise of a sound discretion, discriminate in 
arranging the rates of duty on diiferent articles ; but the dis- 
criminations should be within the revenue standard, and be 
made with the view to raise money for the support of Govern- 
ment." " The new Administration proposed three important 
measures in relation to the duties : The first to abandon the 
protective theory in favor of a revenue theory, that is, to reduce 
the rates of duty, to levy them ad valorem, to make the rates 
uniform, and to make them payable in cash ; the warehouse 
system to facilitate the carrying trade ; and the Independent 
treasury, by which the cash duties were to be collected in gold 
and silver only." The Secretary of the Treasury, Eobert J. 
TValkek, made an elaborate report, recommending a revmiie 
tariff in opposition to a protective tariff. A bill was introduced 
of such a character, and was passed in the House, July 2, 184G, 
by 114 votes in the affirmative, and 95 in the negative ; and in 



THE TARIFF OF 1846. 139 

the Senate bv a vote of 28 in the affirmative, and 27 in the neg- 
ative. The strength of tlie South, in both Houses, was in the 
affirmative, and the strength of the North in the negative. 

Tliis change in the tariff was advocated by the Southern 
members upon constitutional grounds, namely, that it was a 
change from a tariff for protection which is not authorized by 
tlie Constitution, unless that protection is incidental, to a tariff 
for revision which is tlie legitimate object of a tariff, and is 
authorized by the Constitution. 

It was opposed by Northern men on the ground, that sub- 
stantive protection had become the policy of the Government ; 
and, also, because the tariff of 1816 could not be reasonably ex- 
pected to produce as large a revenue as the tariff' of 1842. Ex- 
perience proved that the Northern members were mistaken. 
The average of the tariff of 1842 was twenty-six millions ; the 
average of tlie tariff of 1846 was forty-six millions. As an 
apology for the failure of Northern predictions, it should be 
said that the unexpected gold discoveries in California averaged 
at once the exports and the imports, and thus the revenue. 

Mr. AYebster, in the course of his speech in opposition to 
the bill, said : " It is not a bill for the people. It is not a bill 
for the masses. It is not a bill to add to the comfort of those 
in middle life, or the poor. It is not a bill for employment. It 
is a bill for the relief of the highest and most luxurious classes 
of the country, and a bill imposing onerous duties on the great 
industrial masses, and taking away the means of living from 
labor, everywhere throughout the land." 

Mr. McDuFFiE, in reply said : " The strong language of the 
Senator from Massachusetts, in characterizing this bill as an 
aristocratic measure, imposes upon me the duty of saying a few 
TTords before the question is taken, to disabuse the jDublic mind 
of any such impression, if any such impression is made upon it. 
The honorable Senator has asked, with great confidence, and 
certainly not in the expectation of being replied to, where is the 
Democratic feature of this bill ? Where is the provision in- 
tended to operate in favor of the laboring classes of the coim- 
try ? On the contrary he goes on to enumerate certain articles 
of luxury upon which the duties have been reduced, and leaving 
it to be inferred that these are the great and principal reduc- 
10 



140 THE SECTIONAL COXTROVEKSY. 

tions. Now, Mr. President, 1 will point out to the Senator the 
Democratic features of this bill. It has reduced the duty upon 
salt from eight cents to half a cent. It has reduced the duty 
upon sugar from two and a half cents to one cent per pound. 
It has reduced the duty on all that class of cotton manufactures, 
whether white or printed, which is consumed by the laborers, 
farmers, and mechanics of the United States, God knows how 
much ! But I sincerely believe that in this bill, on all that 
class of manufactures consumed by the poor and middle ranks, 
there is a reduction of duties greater than on any other class of 
articles contained in the bill ; and I have expressed the opinion, 
which I sincerely believe, that the repeal of the cotton mini- 
mums — an invention which never was known until it was in- 
troduced in the bill of 181G, and, I believe, unknown to the 
custom house laws of any other country, so far as my knowl- 
edge extends — I believe that the striking out of that will alone 
enable the people of the United States to consume an increase 
importation approaching to ten millions of dollars at prices 
little more than two-thirds of that which they have now to 
pay. 

I was obliged to the Senator from Massachusetts for some 
little evidence in favor of the Democratic character of this bill, 
in certain resolutions passed in Boston, in the year 1820, drawn 
uj), I believe, by the honorable member himself, and supported 
and sustained by him soon after the commencement of the 
.spirit which has resulted in the establishment of the protective 
system. The duties then nnder the act of 1816 were about 20 
per cent, or 25 per cent, on the great mass of manufactures 
made out of cotton, wool, and iron, and all the other duties 
were corresponding. The proposition was then to enhance the 
-duties in about the degree of enhancement which took place 
under the tariff of 1821 ; and it was in opposition to this, that 
a meeting of the merchants of Boston, in which the honorable 
Senator from Massachusetts bore a distinguished jjart, passed 
certain resolutions some of which I now recollect. One of them 
I distinctly remember, and it affirmed that the effect of this 
protecting law upon the manufactures of the country would 
redound to the benefit of great capitalists, and not to that of 
the labor of the country. Tliat was a great political propo- 
sition. 



THE T.SJRIFF OF 1846. 141 

Mr, Webster. Does the Senator happen to have those 
resohitions in his desk ? I have no recollection of that. 

Mr. McDuFFiE. I am sorry to say that I have not got a 
copy of the resolutions, but I believe a copy can be obtained. 

Mr. "Westcott here laid on the desk of the Senator from 
South Carolina a file of the " Globe," which was supposed to 
contain the resolutions referred to. 

Mr. Webster. I do not wish to trouble the gentleman nov,- ; 
at his convenience, perhaps, he may be able to furnish the reso- 
lutions. 

Mr. McDcffie proceeded. This, sir, was one of the resolu- 
tions. Another was in answer to the allegation that the estab- 
lishment of these factories would give an increased market to 
the farmer. One of these resolutions was in these words as far 
as I can recollect : 

" They cannot perceive how the farming interest can be 
benefited by a law which increases the price of every thing that 
they have to buy, and diminishes the price of every thing they 
have to sell," 

Kow, sir, I quote this resolution simply with the view and 
for no other purpose than to answer a very confident interrog- 
atory of the Senator — where is the Democratic feature of this 
measure ? 

But, Mr President, I did not intend to make a speech, and I 
will not do so. As, however, the Boston Kesolutions to which I 
referred have been handed to me since I alluded to them, I will 
ask the Clerk to read them, [The Clerk read the resolutions,] 
I want to say one word (Mr. McD. added) on this subject of the 
revenue. I had very strong views on that subject, but my de- 
sire to see the vote taken led me to refrain from presenting 
them to the Senate, and so prolonging the discussion. I will 
take the article of wool, and present a view which seems to be 
entirely overlooked. lie then went on to show that of woollens 
and cottons, the increase of importation would be very great 
under the new law, and the revenue be correspondingly aug- 
mented. The amount of increase from the destruction of the 
minimums it was impossible to calculate. 

Mr." "Webster rose and said : The resolution read cannot 
be the one referred to by the Senator. I remember that meet- 



142 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

ing in Faneuil Hall. I dare say that may be the regular ac- 
count of the proceedings. K it be it cannot be the full account, 
because there was another resolution passed at the same time 
to Avhich my attention has been frequently since called in the 
Senate, and -wliich has not been read in that series of resolu- 
tions. However, I attended a meeting. Whether I drew the 
resolutions or assented to them I do not know. Whether I 
made a speech on the occasion I cannot tell. But I yield it all 
to the honorable member. Consider me as having drawn every 
word of these resolutions, and as having urged their adoption 
upon the people assembled. Suppose that to be any way. 
The first thing I have got to say now is, that the honorable 
member from South Carolina will admit that such is the in- 
firmity of our nature that an honest man may change his ojDin- 
ion, and he may change it in two or three as well as in twenty 
years. I think the most powerful argument ever addressed to 
the people of the United States against the annexation of Texas 
was from the Governor of South Carolina ; and I think the 
greatest speech in favor of it was made by the Senator from 
South Carolina — eandem personam ! 

Mr. McDuFFiE. Texas was then an independent State and 
so recognized. 

Mr. Webstek. Yes, and I quote it for the purpose of show- 
ing that an honest man may change his opinion. Well, sir, I 
believe that the honorable member from South Carolina was, 
at the time 1 had the honor of being associated Avith him in the 
House of Kepresentatives, a most powerful advocate of internal 
improvements, and raised his voice in favor of that principle. 

Mr. McDurriE. ISTot in fa^'or of the exercise-power. 

Mr. Webstek. Was the power then to be barren ? 

Mr. McDuffie. Only to make surveys. 

Mr. Webster. Why that was the first step. He that can 
make a survey for improvements, can make improvements, I 
Ijelieve the honorable gentleman also at one time entertained a 
very favorable opinion of the Bank of the United States, and at 
another time quite the contrary. Well, then, I stand before 
the Senate as a man who has found occasion to change his 
opinions. 

Mr. McDuffie. I made no unkind imputation. 



THE TAEIFF OF 1816. 143 

Mr. AVebster. Certainly not. A -word, sir, about these 
resolutions of 1821. I remember tlie state of things very well. 
The commercial people of Kew England, in 1821, were in a 
considerable state of alarm. They had commerce all over the 
world. They thought that a policy had been begun at Wash- 
ington which would interfere with their commerce, and it was 
of that, that they were afraid. How was this great evil, of 
which they had become afraid, fastened upon them ? By the 
minimums put upon them by South Carolina to cut off the 
]^ew England India trade — that's all. The minimum principle, 
so odious now, was moved in Congress by a most respectable 
and distinguished member from South Carolina not now living. 
It was carried by South Carolina against every vote of Massa- 
chusetts. I do not think there was a vote of Massachusetts, not 
one in favor of the measure. Well, then, it is not because the 
minimum principle is bad in itself. Why, sir, minimum is now 
spoken of here as if it were a Pawnee Indian, or one of the 
Camanches that eats up and destroys everybody and every thing. 

Mr. McDuFFiE. So it does ! 

Mr. Weestek. Well, bad as it is, it was introduced by 
South Carolina against every vote of Massachusetts. We all 
now see that the Senator from South Carolina is against it. 
Well, then, in 1820 or thereabouts, an eminent member of Con- 
gress from Pennsylvania introduced a high protective tariff 
bearing among certain other things especially upon iron. I 
refer to Mr. Baldwix, afterwards judge of the Supreme Court. 
That tariff went to protect every thing out of ISTew England. 
Well, here was Jiew England between the upper and nether 
mill-stone ; between the South Carolina tariff with its mini- 
mums on cottons which cut off" the India trade, and the Penn- 
sylvania tariff. I wish the gentleman had dwelt a little more, 
in his address to the Chair, on the effect of this bill upon the 
iron and coal of Pennsylvania. But now, sir, I agree, that 
whether it be owing to change of opinion wrought by circum- 
stances, by a change in the condition of things in the country, 
or otherwise, I am of opinion that in the present state of things 
which has existed since 1824, there is no going back from that 
principle of protection which was established in 1824. The law 
of 1824 did not pass with the consent of Massachusetts. It re- 



144 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

ceived but one vote, I think, in the entire delegation from Mass- 
achusetts in both Houses of Congress*. As I said the other day, 
XeAV England had been addicted to commerce. But she sup- 
posed the time had come, Avhen she must conform herself to the 
law of the country and invest her capital — for her labor was 
her capital — and direct her industry to such pursuits as the 
country had promised to protect and uphold. Now, sir, if 
there be any thing inconsistent in that, I admit the inconsistency 
— take it in the broadest sense and I agree to every word of the 
resolution of Faneuil Hall of 1821. In the present state of things 
there is an essential importance — an absolute moral necessity 
for maintaining those habits, pursuits, business, and employ- 
ments, into which men entered tM'cnty-two years ago, upon the 
faith of the declared sentiments and policy of a majority of both 
Houses of Congress. 

OREGON TERRITORY. 

August 11, 1848. — Mr. Douglas, of the Committee on Ter- 
ritories, moved to amend the Oregon territorial bill, by extend- 
ing the line of 3G° 30', agreed upon in the Missouri Compro- 
mise, to the Pacific Ocean, and thus settle the slavery question 
in respect to territories. The vote in the Senate in favor of this 
amendment was 33, against it 21. Those in the negative were: 
Allex and Corwin of Ohio, Atherton and Hale of !New 
Hampshire, Baldwin and Kiles of Connecticut, Bradbury and 
Ha:mlin of Maine, Brown of Blinois, Clarke and Greene of 
Tlhode Island, Davis and Webster of Massachusetts, Dayton 
and AVells of ISTew Jersey, Dix of ISTew York, Dodge of Iowa, 
Fetch of Michigan, Piiflps and Upiiam of Yermont, "NYalker 
of Wisconsin. 

In the House, this amendment was rejected by a vote of 121 
against, and 82 in favor. Northern members refused to carry 
out the Missouri Compromise in its application to territories 
lying west of Missouri. This is an historical fact of great sig- 
nificance in its relation to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. 

the wil:mot proviso. 

To a bill, proposed by Mr. McKay, of North Carolina, for 
making peace with Mexico, introduced into the House of liep 



EEMAEKS. 145 

resentatives, August 8, 1846, Mr. David Wilmot, of Pennsyl- 
vania, proposed the following amendment : lyromded^ "Tliat as 
an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any 
territory from the Republic of Mexico by the IJnited States, by 
virtue of any treaty which may be negotiated between them, 
and to the use by the Executive of the moneys herein appro- 
priated, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever 
exist in any part of said territory, except for crime, whereof 
the party sliall first be duly convicted." 

Mr. "Wick moved to amend the amendment by inserting 
therein, after the word " territory," the words, " north of 36° 30' 
north latitude." 

The amendment to the amendment was disagreed to — ayes 
54, noes 89. 

The question then recurring on the original amendment of 
Mr. "WiLMOT, it was decided in ihe affirmative — ayes 83, noes 64. 

This amendment, with some modifications, came up for con- 
sideration in the House, March 3, 1847. It was rejected by a 
vote of 97 in favor, and 102 against the proviso. The votes of 
the ISTew England States were in favor of the proviso ; the votes 
of the Southern States were opposed to the proviso. 

KEMAKKS. 

1. As ISTorthern views ^^revailed in Congress, during the Ad- 
ministration of General Hakrison and Mr. Tyler ; so Southern 
views prevailed in regard to political principles and policy dur- 
ing the Administration of Mr. Polk. 

2. Mr. Yan Buren" expected the nomination to the Presi- 
dency from the Democratic party in 1844, but failed of receiv- 
ing it on account of his declared op])osition to the immediate 
annexation of Texas, which prevented his receiving the votes 
of Southern delegates in the Convention. Mr. Clay, for the 
same reason, failed of his election. He neither satisfied the 
South, nor all the free sellers of the Korth, by his letters in re- 
spect to Texas. 

3. The adoption of the Wilniot proviso in the House on its 
first introduction, alarmed and wounded the South. This at- 
tempt to exclude Southern men and Southern institutions from 



14G THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

the territories wliich were won by tlio common blood and the 
common treasure of the States, created a deep sense of injury 
in the hearts of Southern people. On the other hand, the legis- 
latures of several Northern States passed resolves approving of 
the proviso, while the Northern press and Northern speech- 
inakers were clamorous in its favor, and, to some extent, kindled 
up a fanatical spirit throughout that section. In opposition to 
these movements, resolutions were introduced by Mr. Calhoun 
into the Senate of the United States, declaring that the terri- 
tories of the United States belong to the several States as joint 
property ; that Congress, as the joint agent of the States, has 
no right to discriminate between the States, so as to deprive 
any of them of its full and equal right in any territory of the 
United States ; that the enactment of any law which should 
deprive the citizens of any of the States from emigrating with 
their j^roperty into any of the territories of the Union, will make 
such discrimination, and would be a violation of the Constitu- 
tion and the rights of the States from which such citizens emi- 
grated. These resolutions, though never pressed to a vote, had 
their influence in Congress and the country. 

4, It should be borne in mind that the Northern States 
claimed all of the territories for themselves, and their citizens, 
and their institutions. 

The Southern States claimed ixpart, or half of the territories 
for themselves, and their citizens, and their institutions. 

"Which of the two sections was the more generous and 
liberal and just? 

5. Tlie following is one of a series of resolutions adopted by 
the Legislature of "Virginia, March 8, 1847, and re-afiirmcd in 
1849 : " Resolved unanimously, That all territory which may 
be acquired by the arms of the United States, or yielded by 
treaty with any foreign power, belongs to the several States of 
this Union, as their joint and common proj^erty, in which each 
and all have equal rights ; and that the enactment, by the Fed- 
eral Government, of any law which should directly, or by its 
effects, prevent the citizens of any State from emigrating with 
their property, of whatever description, into such territory, 
would make a discrimination unwarranted by, and in violation 
of, the compromises of the Constitution, and the rights of the 



EEMAKKS. 147 

States from whicli such citizens emigrated, and in derogation 
of that perfect equality which belongs to the several States as 
members of this Union, and would directly tend to subvert the 
Union itself." This had a direct reference to the "Wilmot pro- 
viso, but it had also a wider application. 

6. Did those members of Congress wdio voted against ex- 
tending the line of the Missouri Compromise from the 36° 30' to 
the Pacific Ocean, for the settlement of the sectional disputes 
in regard to territories, act judiciously and fairly ? Could they 
have foreseen the evils which consequently sprang up after- 
wards, would they not have given a different vote, and thus 
have avoided those evils ? 

In the latter part of the Administration of Mr. Polk, the 
slave State members held nightly meetings, in which the so- 
called aggressions of Northern States were dwelt upon, and 
measures considered for the defence and protection of the 
South. Out of these meetings grew an address to the people 
of the slave-holding States, signed by about forty members of 
Congress. In that address, the following language is used : 
" We allude to the conflict between the two great sections of 
the Union, growing out of a difference of feeling and opinion in 
reference to the relation existing between the two races, the 
European and the African, which inhabit the Southern section, 
and the acts of aggression and encroachment to which it has led. 
The conflict commenced not long after the acknowledgment of 
our independence, and has gradually increased until it has ar- 
rayed the great body of the Xorth against the South on this 
most vital subject. In the progress of this conflict, aggression 
has followed aggression, and encroachment encroachment, until 
they have reached a point when a regard for peace and safety 
will not permit us to remain longer silent." 



CHAPTER XIII. 

GENEKAL TAYI.OK AND MK. FILLMOEe's ADMINTSTEATION. 
March 4, 1849— March 4, 1853. 

General Zachary Taylor was elected by tlie TVliig party, 
on tlie ground of availability, and not on the ground of political 
experience and qualifications. He was regarded as an honest 
man, and as " rough and ready " in war. Many of the Demo- 
cratic party voted foa* him on the ground of his personal and 
popular qualities. He was elected on the platform of the Con- 
stitution, the subject of slavery being ignored by the Convention 
which nominated him. 

Mr. Cass was nominated on a platform which expressed no 
op])Osition to slavery, and was acceptable to tlic slaveholding 
States generally. 

Mr. Van Buren was nominated at Buffalo, by a portion of 
the Democratic party, in consequence of the rejection of the two 
sets of delegates from New York, by the Democratic nominating 
Convention at Baltimore. One of these factions in that State 
whose delegates had been rejected, determined to assert its claim 
to being the Democratic party of New Yorlc, by nominating a 
candidate of its own. President D wight once said that the old 
" Council of Appointment " in ISTew York " was a hornet's nest 
in the kitchen." That Council had been long since abolished, 
but still, as late as 1848, difficulties existed connected with the 
appointing power, Tlie hornet's nest liad been removed, but 
the hornets remained. In the platform adopted at Buffalo, it 
was declared to be tlie duty of the Federal Government to abol- 
ish slavery wherever it can constitutionally be done ; thus jjoint- 
ing to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. It 



DANGER OF DISUIN^IOX. 149 

was also declared in that platform that Congress alone can pre- 
vent the existence of slavery in the Territories ; tlms pointing 
to exclusion of slavery in the Territories. The party assumed 
the name of " Free soilers," or " Free-soil party," and rejoiced 
in the watchword, " Free speech," " Free labor," " Free men." 
The " Liberty party," or "Free-soil party," of jSTew York, might 
have elected Mr. Clay in ISJr-i, or J\Ir. Cass in 1848, by throw- 
ing their votes with the Whig party at the one election, or witli 
the Democratic party in the other. 

General Tayloe came into office when there was strong sec- 
tional feeling both North and South, excited by the attempt to 
pass the Wilmot proviso, and by many other aggressive move- 
ments of the Northern States. These States, or large numbers 
in these, were disposed : 

1. To exclude slaves from the Territories, and in this way to 
prevent any more slave States from coming into the Union. 

2. To abolish slave representation in Congress, by an amend- 
ment to the Constitution. This was limited to a few States. 

3. To suppress the slave trade between the States, and in 
the District of Columbia. 

4. To abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. 

5. To prevent the capture of fugitive slaves, or at least not 
to aid in restoring them to their owners. 

6. To abolish slavery in the States as soon as can constitu- 
tionally be done, by an amendment to the Constitution. 

In pressing these subjects upon the attention of Congress, a 
very bitter feeling was awakened in both the Northern and 
Southern States, which threatened disunion as a natural conse- 
quence. 

At this time there was an especial interest in the subject of 
slavery restriction in the Territories, not only on account of the 
attempted imposition of the Wilmot proviso, but also on ac- 
count of the projected admission of California. 

D^lNGEE OF DISUNIOX. 

So deeply impressed was Mr. Clay with the danger of dis- 
union, that he brought forward in the Senate, January 29, 1850, 
his celebrated Compromise Resolutions, for the settlement of 



150 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

the sectional difficulties. In his o\vn language, " taken together 
in combination, they propose an amicable arrangement of all 
(questions in controversy between the free and the shxve States." 

Mr. Calhoun, in a speech prepared by him with great care, 
but owing to his feeble health read by Mr. Mason, March 4, 
1850, asserted that " The agitation has been permitted to pro- 
ceed, with almost no attempts to resist it, until it has reached a 
period when it is no longer to be disguised or denied, that the 
Union is in danger." " "What is it that has endangered the 
Union ? To this question there can be but one answer : that 
the immediate cause is the almost universal discontent which 
pervades all the States composing the Southern section of the 
Union. This widely-extended discontent is not of recent origin. 
It commenced with the agitation of the slavery question, and 
has been increasing ever since." He goes on to ask, " What 
has caused this widely-diffused and almost universal discon- 
tent ? " He then proceeds to show that it was not originated 
by demagogues ; that all the great political influences were ar- 
rayed against excitement ; that the Southern Whigs wished to 
keep the peace with their brother Whigs at the North ; that 
the Southern Democrats wished to keep the peace with tlieir 
brother Democrats at the North. " One of the causes is found 
in the long-continued agitation of the slave question on the part 
of the Korth, and the many aggressions made on the rights of 
the South during diat time," 

" There is another cause lying back of it, with which this is 
so intimately connected that it may be regarded as the great 
and primary cause ; that is to l)e found in the fact that the 
equilibrium between the two sections of the Government, as it 
stood when the Constitution was ratified, and the Government 
put in action, is destroyed. At that time there was nearly a 
perfect equilibrium between tlie two, which afforded ample 
means to each to protect itself against the aggressions of the 
other ; but as it now stands, one section has tlie exclusive power 
of controlling the Government, which leaves the other without 
any adequate means of protecting itself against its encroach- 
ment and oppression." The change arising from the increase 
of States and the increase of population, gives to the North a 
majority in tlie House of 50, and in the electoral college of 52. 



DANGER OF DISTHSIION. 151 

" The great increase of Senators, added to the great increase 
of numbers in the House of Kepresentatives and in the elec- 
toral college, on the part of the North, which must take place 
under the next decade, will effectually and irretrievably destroy 
the equilibrium which existed when the Government com- 
menced. 

" Had this destruction been the operation of time, without 
the interference of Government, the South would have had no 
reason to complain ; but such was not the fact. It was caused 
by the legislation of this Government, which was appointed as 
the common agent of all, and charged with the protection of the 
interests and security of all. The legislation by which it has 
been effected may be classed under three heads : The first is that 
series of acts by which the South had been excluded from the 
common territory belonging to all of the States, as the members 
of the Federal Union, and which soon had the effect of extend- 
ing vastly the portion allotted to the Northern section, and re- 
stricting within narrow limits the portion left to the South. The 
next consists in adopting a system of revenue and disbursements, 
by which an undue portion of the burden of taxation has been 
imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of the proceeds 
appropriated to the North. And the last is a system of political 
measures, by which the original character of the Government 
has been radically changed. 

" The first of the series of acts by which the South was de- 
prived of its due share of the Territories, originated with the 
Confederacy, which preceded the existence of this Government. 
It is to be found in the ordinance of 1Y8Y. Its effect was to ex- 
clude the South entirely from that vast and fertile region which 
lies between the Ohio and the Mississippi Rivers, now em- 
bracing five States and one Territory. The next of the series is 
the Missouri Compromise, which excluded the South from that 
large portion of Louisiana which lies north of 36° 30', except 
what is included in the State of Missouri. The last in the series 
excluded the South from the whole Oregon Territory. All 
these, in the slang of the day, were what is called slave Territo- 
ries, and not free soil ; that is. Territories belonging to slave- 
holding powers, and open to the emigration of masters witli 
their slaves. By these several acts the South was excluded 



152 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVERST. 

from 1,238,025 square miles. To the South was left the portion 
of the Territory of Louisiana lying south of 30° 30', and the 
portion north of it included in the State of Missouri ; the por- 
tion lying south of 36° 30', including the States of Louisiana 
and Arkansas ; and the Territory lying west of the latter and 
south of 3G° 30', called the Indian country. These, with the 
Territory of Florida, now the State, makes in the whole 283,503 
square miles. To this must be added the territory acquired 
with Texas. If the whole should be added to the Southern sec- 
tion, it would make an increase of 325,520, which would make 
the whole left to the South 009,023. But a large part of Texas 
is still in contest between the two sections, which leaves it un- 
certain what will be the real extent of the portion of territory 
that may be left to the South. 

" I have not included the territory recently acquired by the 
treaty with Mexico. The !North is making the most strenuous 
efforts to appropriate the whole to herself, by excluding tlie 
South from every foot of it. If she should succeed, it will add 
to that from which the South has already been excluded, 
520,078 square miles, and would increase the whole which the 
Xorth has appropriated to herself to l,Y6tl:,023, not including 
the portion that she may succeed in excluding us from in Texas. 
To sum up the whole, the United States, since they declared 
their independence, have acquired 2,373,040 square miles of 
teiTitory, from which the ISTorth will have excluded the South, 
if she should succeed in monopolizing the newly acquired ter- 
ritories, from about three-fourths of the whole, leaving to the 
South but about one-fourth. 

"Such is the first and great cause that has destroyed the equi- 
librium between the two sections in the Govcnnnent. 

'• The next is the system of revenue and disbursements, which 
has been adopted by the Government. It is well known that 
the Government has derived its revenue mainly from duties on 
imports. I shall not undertake to show that such duties must 
necessarily fall mainly on the exporting States, and that the 
South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in 
reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the rev- 
enue ; because I deem it unnecessary, as the subjeqt has oh so 
many occasions been fully discussed. Nor shall I, for the same 



DANGER OF DISUinON. 153 

reason, undertake to show that a far greater portion of tlie rev- 
enue has been disbursed at the !N"orth than its due share, and 
that the joint efiect of these causes has been to transfer a vast 
amount from South to Korth, which, under an equal system of 
revenue and disbursements, woukl not have been lost to her. 
If to this be added, that many of the duties were imposed, not 
for revenue, but for protection ; that is, uitended to put money, 
not in the treasury, but directly into the pockets of the manufac- 
turers, some conception may be formed of the immense amount 
which, in the long course of sixty years, has been transferred 
from South to l^orth. There are no data by which it can be 
estimated with any certainty ; but it is safe to say that it 
amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars. Under the most 
moderate estimate, it would be sufficient to add greatly to the 
wealth of the Korth, and thus greatly increase her population 
by attracting emigration from all quarters to that section. 

'• This, combined with the great primary cause, amply ex- 
plains why the North has acquired a preponderance over every 
department of the Government by its disproportionate increase 
of population and States. The former, as has been shown, has 
increased in fifty years 2,400,000 over that of the South. This 
increase of population during so Jong a period, is satisfactorily 
accounted for by the number of emigrants, and the increase of 
their descendants, which have been attracted to the jSTorthern 
section from Europe and the South, in consequence of the ad- 
vantages derived from the causes assigned. If they had not 
existed ; if the South had retained all the capital which has 
been extracted from her by the fiscal action of the Government ; 
and, if it had not been excluded by the ordinance of '87 and the 
Missouri Compromise from the region lymg between the Ohio 
and the Mississippi Rivers, and between the Mississippi and 
the Eocky Mountains north of 36° 30', it scarcely admits of a 
doubt that it would have divided the emigration with tlie 
ISTorth, and by retaining her own people, would have at least 
equalled the ISTorth in population under the census of 18-10, and 
probably under that about to be taken. She would also, if she 
had retained her equal rights in those territories, have main- 
tained an equality in the number of States with the North, and 
have preserved the equilibrium between the two sections that 



15i THE SECTIONAL CONTROVKKST. 

existed at the commencement of the Government. The loss, 
then, of the equilibrium is to be attributed to the action of this 
Government. But while these measures were destroying the 
equilibrium between the two sections, the action of the Govern- 
ment was leading to a radical change in its character, by con- 
centrating all the power of the system in itself. The occasion 
will not permit me to trace the measures by which this great 
change has been consummated. If it did, it would not bo diffi- 
cult to show that the process commenced at an early period of 
the Government ; that it proceeded almost without interruption, 
step by step, until it absorbed virtually its entire j^owers. But 
without going through the whole process to establish the fact, 
it may be done satisfactorily by a very short statement. That 
tlie Government claims, and practically maintains, tlio right to 
decide, in the last resort, as to the extent of its powers, will 
scarcely be denied'by any one conversant with the political his- 
torj' of the country. Tliat it also claims the right to resort to 
force, to maintain whatever power she claims against all oj^po- 
sition, is equally certain. Indeed it is apparent, from what we 
daily hear, that this has become the prevailing and fixed opinion 
of a great majority of the commimity. 'Now, 1 ask, what limi- 
tation can possibly be placed upon the powers of a Government 
claiming and exercising such rights ? And, if none can be, how 
can the separate Governments of the States maintain and pro- 
tect the powers reserved to them by the Constitution, or the 
people of the several States maintain those which are reserved 
to them, and among others, the sovereign powers by which they 
ordained and established, not only their separate State Consti- 
tutions and Governments, but also the Constitution and Gov- 
ernment of the United States ? But, if they have no constitu- 
tional means of maintaining them against the right claimed by 
this Government, it necessarily follows that they hold them at 
its pleasure and discretion, and that all the powers of the system 
are in reality concentrated in it. It also follows that the char- 
acter of the Government has been changed, in consequence, 
from a Federal Eepublie, as it originally came from the hands 
of its framers, and that it has been changed into a great national 
consolidated Democracy. It has indeed, at present, all thechar- 
acteristics of the latter, and not one of the former, although it 



DANGER OF DISUNION. 155 

still retains its outward form. The result of the whole of these 
causes combined is, that the ISTorth has acquired a decided ascend- 
ency over every department of this Government, and through 
it a control over all the powers of the system. A single section 
governed by the will of the numerical majority has now, in 
fact, the control of the Government, and the entire powers of 
the system. What was once a constitutional Federal Eepublic 
is now converted, in reality, into one as absolute as that of the 
autocrat of Kussia, and as desj^otic in its tendency as any ab- 
solute Government that ever existed. 

" As, then, the Korth has the absolute control over the Gov- 
ernment, it is manifest that on all questions between it and the 
South, where there is a diversity of interests, the interests of 
the latter will be sacrificed to the former, however oppressive 
the effects may be, as the South possesses no means by which it 
can resist through the action of the Government. But if there 
was no question of vital importance to the South, in reference 
to which there was a diversity of views between the two sec- 
tions, this state of things might be endured without the hazard 
of destruction to the South. But such is not the fact. There 
is a question of vital importance to the Southern section, in 
reference to which the views and feelings of the two sections 
are as opposite and hostile as they can possibly be. I refer to 
the relation between the two races in the Southern section, 
which constitutes a vital portion of her social organization. 
Every portion of the North entertains views and feelings more 
or less hostile to it. Those most ojoposed and hostile regard it 
as a sin, and consider themselves under the most sacred obliga- 
tion to use every effort to destroy it. Indeed, to the extent 
that they conceive they have the power, they regard themselves 
as implicated in the sin, and responsible for suppressing it by 
the use of all and every means. Those less opposed and hostile, 
regard it as a crime — an offence against humanity, as they call 
it ; and although not so fanatical, feel themselves bound to use 
all efforts to effect the same object ; while those who are least 
opposed and hostile, regard it as a blot and a stain on the char- 
acter of what they call the nation, and feel themselves accord- 
ingly bound to give it no countenance or support. On the 

contrary, the Southern section regards the relation as one which 
11 



156 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVIj;SY. 

cannot be destroyed without subjecting the two races to the 
greatest calamity, and the section to poverty, desolation, and 
■wTctchedness ; and accordingly they feel bound by every con- 
sideration of interest and safety to defend it. 

"This hostile feeling on the part of the North towards the 
social organization of the South long lay dormant, but it only 
required some cause to act on those who felt most intensely 
that they were responsible for its continuance to call it into 
action. The increasing power of this Government, and of the 
control of the Is^orthern section over all its departments, fur- 
nished the cause. It was this which made an impression on the 
minds of many, that there was little or no restraint to prevent 
the Government from doing whatever it might choose to do. 
Tliis was sufficient of itself to put the most fanatical portion of 
the North in action for the purpose of destroying the existing 
relation between the two races in the South. 

" The first organized movement towards it commenced in 
1835. Then, for the first time, societies were organized, presses 
established, lecturers sent forth to excite the people of the 
North, and incendiary publications scattered over the Avhole 
South through the mail. The South was thoroughly aroused. 
Meetings were held everywhere, and resolutions adopted, calling 
upon the North to apply a remedy to arrest the threatened evil, 
and pledging themselves to adopt measures for their own pro- 
tection, if it was not arrested. At the meeting of Congress, 
petitions poured in from the North, calling upon Congress to 
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and to prohibit 
what they called the internal slave trade between the States, 
announcing at the same time that their ultimate object was to 
abolish slavery, not only in the District, but in the States and 
throughout the Union. At this period the number engaged in 
the agitation was small, and possessed little or no personal in- 
fluence. 

" Neither party in Congress had, at that time, any sympathy 
with them or their cause. The members of each i)arty pre- 
sented their petitions with great reluctance. Nevertheless, as 
small and contemptible as the party then was, both of the great 
parties at the North dreaded them. Tliey felt that, though 
small, they were organized in reference to a subject which had 



DANGER OF DISUXION. 157 

a great and commanding influence over the Northern mind. 
Each party on that account feared to oppose their petitions, 
lest the opposite party should take advantage of the one who 
might do so by favoring their petitions. The etfect was, that 
both united in insisting that the petitions should be received, 
and that Congress should take jurisdiction of the subject for 
which they prayed. To justify their course, they took the ex- 
traordinary ground that Congress was bound to receive petitions 
on every subject, however objectionable it might be, and whether 
they had or had not jurisdiction over the subject. These views 
prevailed in the House of Representatives, and partially in the 
Senate, and thus the party succeeded in their first movements 
in gaining what they proposed — a position in Congress from 
which agitation could be extended over the whole Union, This 
was the commencement of the agitation, which has ever since 
continued, and which, as is now acknowledged, has endangered 
the Union itself. As for myself, 1 believed, at that early period, 
if the party Avho got up the petitions should succeed in getting 
Congress to take jurisdiction, that agitation would follow, and 
that it would, in the end, if not arrested, destroy the Union. I 
then so expressed myself in debate, and called upon both par- 
ties to take grounds against assuming jurisdiction, but in vain. 
Had my voice been heeded, and had Congress refused to take 
jurisdiction, by the united votes of all parties, the agitation 
which followed would have been prevented, and the fanatical 
zeal that gives impulse to the agitation, and which has brought 
us to our present perilous condition, would have become ex- 
tinguished from the want of something to feed the flame. That 
was the time for the North to show her devotion to the Union ; 
but unfortunately both of the great j)arties of that section were 
so intent on obtaining or retaining party ascendency, that all 
other considerations were overlooked or forgotten. 

" What has since followed are but the natural consequences. 
"With the success of their first movement, this small fanatical 
party began to acquire strength ; and with that to become an 
object of courtship to both the great parties. Tlie necessary 
consequence was a further increase of power, and a gradual 
tainting of the opinions of both of the other parties with their 
doctrines, until the infection has extended over both ; and the 



158 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEKSY. 

great masses of tlie population of tlic Nortli who, ■wliatever may 
be their oj^inioii of the original abolition party, -which still pre- 
serves its distinctive organization, hardly ever fail, when it 
comes to acting, to co-operate in carrying out their measures. 
With the increase of their influence, they extended the sphere 
of their action. In a short time after the commencement of 
their first movement, they had acquired suflScient influence to 
induce the Legislatures of most of the Northern States to pass 
acts which, in eflfect, abrogated the provision of the Constitu- 
tion that provides for the delivering up of fugitive slaves. Kot 
long after, petitions followed to abolish slavery in forts, maga- 
zines, and dock-yards, and all other places where Congress had 
exclusive power of legislation. This was followed by petitions 
and resolutions of Legislatures of the Northern States and pop- 
ular meetings, to exclude the Southern States from all terri- 
tories acquired or to be acquired, and to prevent the admission 
of any State hereafter into the L^nion, which by its Constitution 
does not prohibit slavery. And Congress is invoked to do all 
this expressly with the view to the final abolition of slavery in 
the States. Tliat has been avowed to be the ultimate object 
from the beginning of agitation until the present time ; and yet 
the great body of both parties of the ISTorth, with the full knowl- 
edge of the fact, although disavowing the abolitionists, have co- 
operated with them in almost all their measures. 

" Such is a brief history of the agitation, as far as it has yet 
advanced. Now, I ask Senators, what is there to prevent its 
further progress, until it fulfils the ultimate end proposed, un- 
less some decisive measure should be adopted to prevent it ? 
Has any one of the causes, which have added to its increase from 
its original small and contemptible beginning until it has at- 
tained its present magnitude, diminished in force ? Is the 
original cause of the movement, that slavery is a sin, and ought 
to be suppressed, weaker now than at the commencement ? Or 
are the Abolition party less numerous or influential, or have they 
less influence over, or control over the two great parties of the 
ISTorth in elections ? Or has the South greater means of influ- 
encing or controlling the movements of this Government now, 
than it had when the agitation commenced ? To all these ques- 
tions but one answer can be given : No, no, no ! The very re- 



DANGEE OF DISUNION. 159 

verse is true. Instead of being weaker, all the elements in favor 
of agitation arc stronger now tlian they were in 1835, when it 
first commenced, while all the elements of influence on the part 
of the South arc weaker. Unless something decisive is done, I 
again ask what is to stop this agitation, before the great and 
final object at which it aims — the abolition of slavery in the 
States — is consummated ? Is it, then, not certain, that if some- 
thing decisive is not now done to arrest it, the South will be 
forced to choose between abolition and secession ? Indeed, as 
events are now moving, it will not require the South to secede 
to dissolve the Union. Agitation will of itself efi^'ect it, of which 
its past history furnishes abmidant proof, as I shall next pro- 
ceed to show. 

" It is a great mistake to suppose that disunion can be eftected 
by a single blow. The cords which bind these States together 
in one common Union are far too numerous and powerful for 
tliat. Disunion must be the work of time. It is only through 
a long process, and successively, that the cords can be snapped, 
until the whole fabric falls asunder. Already the agitation of 
the slavery question has snapped some of the most important, 
and has greatly weakened all the others, as I shall proceed to 
show. 

" The cords that bind the States together are not only many 
but various in character. Some are spiritual or ecclesiastical ; 
some political ; others social. Some appertain to the benefit 
conferred by the Union, and others to the feeling of duty and 
obligation. 

" The strongest of those of a spiritual and ecclesiastical nature 
consisted in the unity of the great religious denominations*, all 
of which originally embraced the whole Union. All these de- 
nominations, with the exception, perhaps, of the Catholics, were 
organized very much upon the principle of our political institu- 
tions ; beginning with smaller meetings corresponding with the 
political divisions of the county, their organizations terminated 
in one great central assemblage, corresponding very much with 
the character of Congress. At these meetings, the principal 
clergymen and lay members of the respective denominations 
from all parts of the Union met to transact business relating to 
their common concerns. It was not confined to what aj^per- 



IGO THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEESY. 

tained to the doctrines and discipline of tlie respective denom- 
inations, but extended to plans for disseminating the Bible, 
establishing missionaries, distributing tracts, and of establishing 
presses for the publication of tracts, newspapers, and periodicals, 
with a view of diffusing religious information, and for the sup- 
port of the doctrines and creeds of the denomination. All this 
combined, contributed greatly to strengthen the bonds of the 
Union. The strong ties which held each denomination together 
formed a strong cord to hold the whole Union together ; but, 
as powerful as they were, they have not been able to resist the 
explosive effect of slavery agitation. 

" The first of these cords which snapped, under its explosive 
force, was that of the powerful Methodist Episcopal Church. 
The numerous and strong ties which held it together are all 
broke, and its unity gone. Tliey now form sej^aratc churches, 
and, instead of that feeling of attachment and devotion to the 
interests of the whole Church whicli was formerly felt, they are 
now arrayed into two hostile bodies, engaged in litigation about 
what was formerly their common property. 

" The next cord that snapped was that of the Baptists, one of 
the largest and most respectable of the denominations. Tliat 
of the Presbyterian is not entirely snapj)ed, but some of its 
strands have given way. That of the Episcopal Church is the 
only one of the four great Protestant denominations which re- 
mains mibrokcn and entire. 

" The strongest cord of a political character consists of the 
many and strong ties that have held together the two great 
parties, whicli have, with some modifications, existed from the 
beginning of the Government. They both extended to every 
portion of the Union, and strongly contributed to hold all its 
parts together. But this powerful cord has fared no better than 
the spiritual. It resisted for a long time the explosive tendency 
of the agitation, but has finally snapped under its force — if not 
entirely, in a great measure. ISTor is there one of the remaining 
cords which has not been greatly weakened. To this extent the 
Union has already been destroyed by agitation, in the only way 
it can be, by snapping asunder and weakening the cords which 
bind it together. 

If the agitation goes on, the same force, acting with increased 



DANGER OF DISUNION. 161 

intensity, as has been shown, will finally snap every cord, when 
nothing will be left to hold the States together except force. 
But snrely that can, with no propriety of language, be called a 
union, when the only means by which the weaker is held con- 
nected with the stronger portion is force. It may, indeed, keep 
them connected ; but the connection will partake much more 
of the character of subjugation, on the part of the weaker to 
the stronger, than the union of free, independent, and sovereign 
States, in one confederation, as they stood in the early stages of 
the Government, and which only is worthy of the sacred name 
of union. 

" Having now. Senators, exj^lained what it is that endangers 
the Union, and traced it to its cause, and explained its nature 
and character, the question again recurs, How can the Union be 
saved ? To this I answer, there is but one way by which it can 
be, and that is, by adopting such measures as will satisfy the 
States belonging to the Southern section that they can remain 
in the Union consistently with their honor and their safety. 
There is, again, only one way by which that can be effected, 
and that is, by removing the causes by which this belief has 
been produced. Do that^ and discontent will cease, harmony 
and kind feelings between the sections be restored, and every 
apprehension of danger to the Union removed. The question 
then is, By what can this be done ? But, before I undertake 
to answer this question, I propose to show by what the Union 
cannot be saved. 

" It cannot, then, be saved by eulogies on the Union, hov^'ever 
splendid or numerous. The cry of ' Union, Union, the glorious 
Union ! ' can no more prevent disunion than the cry of 
' Health, Health, glorious Health ! ' on the part of the phy- 
sician, can save a patient lying dangerously ill. So long as the 
Union, instead of being regarded as a j)i'otector, is regarded in 
the opposite character, by not much less than a majority of the 
States, it will be in vain to attempt to conciliate them by pro- 
nouncino; euloo:ies on it. 

" Besides, this cry of Union comes commonly from those 
whom we cannot believe to be sincere ; it usmilly comes from 
our assailants. But we cannot believe them to be sincere ; for, 
if they loved the Union, they would necessarily be devoted to 



1G3 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEEST. 

tlio Constitution. It made the Union, and to destroy the Con- 
stitution would be to destroy the Union. But the only reliable 
and certain evidence of devotion to the Constitution is to ab- 
stain, on the one hand, from violating it, and to repel, on the 
other, all attempts to violate it. It is only l)y faithfully per- 
forming these high duties that the Constitution can be pre- 
served, and ■with it the Union. 

" But how stands the profession of devotion to the Union by 
our assailants, when brought to this test ? Have they abstained 
from violating the Constitution ? ^Let the many acts passed by 
the Northern States, to set aside and annul- the clause of the 
Constitution providing for the delivery up of fugitive slaves, 
answer. I cite this, not that it is the only instance, (for there 
are many others,) but because the violation in this particular is 
too notorious and palpable to be denied. Again, have they 
stood forth faithfully to repel violations of the Constitution ? 
Let their course in i-eference to the agitation of the slavery ques- 
tion, which was commenced and has been carried on for fifteen 
years, avowedly for the purpose of abolishing slavery in the 
States — an object all acknowledged to be unconstitutional — 
answer. Let them show a single instance, during this long 
period, in which they have denounced the agitators or their 
attempts to cflect what is admitted to be unconstitutional, or a 
single measure which they have brought forward for that pur- 
pose. How can we, with all these facts before us, believe that 
they are sincere in their 2)rofcssion of devotion to the L^nion, or 
avoid believing their profession is but intended to increase the 
vigor of their assaults, and to weaken the force of our re- 
sistance ? 

" JS'or can we regard the profession of devotion to the Union, 
on the part of those who are not our assailants, as sincere, when 
they pronounce eulogies upon the Union, evidently with the 
intent of charging us with disunion, without uttering one word 
of denunciation against our assailants. If friends of the Union, 
their course should be to unite with us in repelling these as- 
saults, and denouncing the authors as enemies of the Union. 
Why they avoid this, and pursue the course they do, it is for 
them to explain. 

" Nor can the Union be saved by invoking the name of the 



DAXGER OF DISUNION. ■' 163 

illnstrions Soiithernci*, whose mortal remains repose on the 
western bank of tlie Potomac. He was one of us — a slave- 
holder and a planter. AVe have studied his history, and find 
nothing in it to justify submission to wrong. Oil the contrary, 
his great fame rests on the solid foundation that, while ho was 
careful to avoid doing wrong to others, he was prompt and de- 
cided in repelling wrong. I trust that, in this respect, vre pro- 
fited by his example. 

" ISTor can we find any thing in his history to deter us from 
seceding from the Union, should it fail to fulfil the objects for 
which it was instituted, by being permanently and hopelessly 
converted into tlie means of oppressing instead of protecting us. 
On the contrary, we find much in his example to encourage us, 
should we be forced to the extremity of deciding between sub- 
mission and disunion. 

"There existed then, as well as now, a Union — that between 
a parent country and her then colonies. It was a Union that 
had much to endear it to the people of the colonies. Under its 
protecting and superintending care, the colonies were planted, 
and grew up, and prospered, through a long course of years, 
until they became populous and wealthy. Its benefits were not 
limited to them. Their extensive agricultural and other pro- 
ductions gave birth to a fiourishing commerce, which richly re- 
warded the parent country for the trouble and expense of estab- 
lishing and protecting them. Washington was born and grew 
up to manhood under that Union. lie acquired his early dis- 
tinction in its service, and there is every reason to believe that 
he was devotedly attached to it. But his devotion was a rational 
one. He was attached to it, not as an end, but as a means to 
an end. When it failed to fulfil its end, and, instead of afford- 
ing protection, was converted into the means of oppressing the 
colonies, he did not hesitate to draw his sword, and head the 
great movement by which that Union was forever severed, 
and the independence of these States established. This was the 
great and crowning glory of his life, which has spread Iiis fame 
over the whole globe, and will transmit it to the latest posterity." 

Mr. Calhoun then \vent on to say, that neither the plan pro- 
posed by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Clay,) 
nor that of the Administration, can save the Union. 



IGl THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

" Having now shown what cannot save the Union, I retiiru 
to the question with which I commenced, How can the Union 
be saved ? There is but one way with which it can with any 
certainty, and that is by a full and final settlement, on the prin- 
ciples of justice, of all questions at issue between the two sec- 
tions. The South asks for justice, simple justice, and less she 
ought not to take. She has no compromise to offer but the 
Constitution, and no concession or suri'cnder to make. She has 
already surrendered so much that she lias little left to surrender. 
Sucli a settlement would go to the root of the evil, and remove 
all cause of discontent, by satisfying the South that she could 
remain honorably and safely in the Union, and thereby restore 
the harmony and fraternal feelings between the sections which 
existed anterior to the Missouri agitation. Nothing else can, 
with any certainty, finally and forever settle the questions at 
issue, terminate agitation, and save the Union. But can this 
be done ? Yes, easily ; not by the weaker party, for it can of 
itself do nothing — not even protect itself — ^but by the stronger. 
The IS^orth has only to will it to accomplish it ; to do justice hy 
conceding to the South an equal right in the acquired territory, 
and, to do her duty hy causing the stipidcdion in regard to fugi- 
tive slaves to he faith fidhj fulfilled j to cease the agitation of the 
slave question, and to provide for the insertion in the Constitu- 
tion of an amendment, which will restore to the South, in sub- 
stance, the power she possessed of protecting herself before the 
equilibrium between the sections was destroyed by the action 
of the Government." 

MR. WEBSTER ON THE COMPROMISE, M.iRCn Y, 1850. 

" Mr. President : I wish to speak to-day, not as a Massa- 
chusetts man, nor as a Northern man, but as an American, and 
a member of the Senate of the United States. It is fortunate 
that there is a Senate of the United States — a body not yet 
moved from its propriety, not lost to a just sense of its own dig- 
nity, and its own high responsibilities, and a body to which the 
country looks with confidence for wise, moderate, patriotic, and 
healing counsels. It is not to be denied that we live in the 
midst of strong agitations, and surrounded by very considerable 



MJJ. WEBSTER ON THE COMPEOMISE, MAECII 7, 1850. 165 

dangers to our institutions of government. Tlic imj^risoncd 
winds are let loose. The East, the West, tlie jSTorth, and the 
stormy Soutli, all combine to throw the whole ocean into com- 
motion, to tojD its billows to the skies, and to disclose its pru- 
foundest depth. I do not expect to hold or to be fit to hold the 
helm in this combat of the political elements ; but I have a 
duty to perform, and I mean to perform it with fidelity — not 
without a sense of the surrounding dangers, but not without 
hope. I have a part to act, not for my own security or safety, 
for I am looking out for no fragment upon which to float away 
from the wreck, if wreck there must be, but for the good of the 
whole and the preservation of the whole ; and there is that 
which will press me to my duty during this struggle, whether 
the sun and the stars shall appear, or shall not appear, after 
many days. I speak to-day for the preservation of the Union. 
' Hear me for my cause.' I speak to-day out of a solicitous and 
anxious heart, for the restoration to the country of that quiet 
and that harmony which make the blessings of the Union so 
rich and so dear to us all." 

Mr. Webster then proceeded to give a history of some of 
the difficulties in respect to slavery ; spoke of the conquest of 
California ; of the gold mines there ; of the Constitution offered 
to Congress as the ground of admission into the Union, which 
Constitution contains the prohibition of slavery, which was not 
satisfactory to the South ; of the existence of slavery in other 
portions and ages of the world, and of the difference of opinion 
felt respecting the institution, by the Xorth and the South ; of 
the unhappy division in the Methodist church, growing out of 
the difference of opinion on this subject. He also spoke of the 
existence of slavery in this country ; of the views entertained of 
it at the time the Constitution was formed, by both !North and 
South ; and of the subsequent change of views in both sections ; 
of the influence of cotton cultivation ; of the annexation of 
Texas ; of his opinion on the admission of slavery in the Terri- 
tories ; of the Wilmot proviso ; of his opposition to the admis- 
sion of ]iew territory ; of the exclusion of slavery by climate 
and the laws of nature ; of the grievances of the North and of 
the South ; of the complaint of the Soutli, " that there has been 
found at the Xorth amono; individuals and among the Legisla- 



IGG THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEKSY. 

tiircs at the Nortli a disinclination to perform fully their consti- 
tutional duties in regard to the return of persons bound to ser- 
vice, who have escaped into the free States. In that respect it 
is my judgment that the South is right, and the ISTorth is wrong," 
He also spoke of resolutions emanating from Legislatures at the 
Xorth, and sent here to ns, not only on the subject of slavery in 
this District, but sometimes recommending Congress to consider 
the means of abohshing slavery in the States. He said that 
" it has become, in my opinion, quite too common a practice for 
the State Legislatures to present resolutions on all subjects, and 
to instruct us here on all subjects." He said, in regard to abo- 
lition societies, that " he does not think them nseful." He 
s2)oke of the violent language used in Congress with disappro- 
bation ; of slave representation ; of the imprisonment of free 
blacks who go South in Northern vessels ; of Mr. Hoar's mis- 
sion ; of the difficulties in the way of secession ; of the gift of 
Virginia to the United States in the cession of territory ; of his 
hopes that the Union may continue. 

This speech, one of the ablest ever made by Mr. "Webster, 
was intended by him to be catholic and lil)eral, and by catho- 
lic and liberal men in every part of the country it was well re- 
ceived, but not by the abolitionists. He had voted not to place 
in the Territorial bills the Wilmot proviso, and hence he in- 
curred the censure of the abolition wing of the Whig party. Li 
allusion to this in a subsequent speech, delivered June 17, he 
said : " When I see gentlemen from my own part of the country, 
no doubt from motives of the highest character, and for most 
conscientious j^urposes, not concurring in any of these great 
questions with myself, I am aware that I am taking on myself 
an uncommon degree of responsibility." He adds : " It is a 
great emergency, a great exigency, that this country is placed 
ill." In relation to this censure, he remarks : '- Xow, sir, I do 
not take the trouble to answer things of this sort that appear in 
the public press ; I know it would be useless." 

He closed his speech as follows : '• Sir, my object is peace. 
My object is reconciliation. My purpose is not to make up a 
case for the JSTorth, or to make up a case for the South., My 
object is not to continue useless and irritating controversies. I 
am against agitation, North and South. I am against local 



ME. CLAY S SPEECH. 167 

ideas Kortli or Sontli, and against all narrow and local contests. 
I am an American, and I know no locality in America : tliat is 
my country. My heart, my sentiment, my judgment demand 
of me, that I shall pursue such a course as shall promote the 
good and the harmony of the whole country. This I shall do, 
God willing, to the end of the chapter." 

MR. clay's speech. 

" Me. Peesident : In the progress of this debate, it has been 
again arid again argued, that perfect tranquillity reigns through- 
out the country, and that there is no disturbance threatening its 
peace, endangering its safety, but that which was produced by 
busy, restless politicians. It has been maintained that the sur- 
face of the public mind is perfectly smooth, and undisturbed by 
a single billow. I most heartily wish I could concur in this 
picture of general tranquillity that has been drawn upon both 
sides of the Senate. I am no alarmist ; nor, I thank God, at 
the advanced age at which his providence has been pleased to 
allow me to reach, am I very easily alarmed by any human 
event. But 1 totally misread the signs of the times, if there be 
that state of profound peace and quiet, that absence of all just 
cause of apprehension of future danger to this Confederacy, 
which appears to be entertained by some other Senators. Mr. 
President, all the tendencies of the times, I lament to say, are 
towards disquietude, if not more fatal consequences. "When 
before, in the midst of profound peace with all the nations of 
the earth, have we seen a convention, representing a consider- 
able portion of one great part of the Kepublic, meet to deliber- 
ate about measures of future safety in connection with great 
interests of that quarter of the country ? When before have we 
seen, not one, but more — some half a dozen — legislative bodies 
solemnly resolving that if any one of these measures — the ad- 
mission of California, the adoption of theWilmot proviso, of tlie 
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia — should be 
adopted by Congress, measures of an extreme character, for the 
safety of the great interests to which I refer, in a particular sec- 
tion of the country, would be resorted to ? For years, this sub- 
ject of the abolition of slavery, even within this District of Co- 



16S THE SECTIONAL CON'TEOVEKSY. 

lumbia, small as is the number of slaves here, lias been a som'ce 
of constant irritation and disquiet. So of tlie subject of tlie re- 
covery of fugitive slaves who have escaped from their lawful 
owners ; not as a mere border contest, as has been supposed — 
although there, undoubtedly, it has given rise to more irritation 
than in other portions of the Union — but everywhere through 
the slaveholding country it has been felt as a great evil, a great 
wrong, which required the intervention of Congressional power. 
But these two subjects, unpleasant as has been the agitation to 
which they have given rise, are nothing in comparison to those 
which have sprung out of the acquisitions recently made from 
the republic of Mexico. These are not only great and leading 
causes of just apprehension as respects the future, but all the 
minor circumstances of the day intimate danger ahead, whatever 
may be its final issue and consequence. 

Mr. President, I will not dwell upon other concomitant 
causes, all having the same tendency, and all well calculated to 
awaken, to arouse us — if, as I hope the fact is, we are all of us 
sincerely desirous of preserving this Union — to arouse us to dan- 
gers which really exist, without underrating them upon the one 
hand, or magnifying them upon the other." 

In reply to Mr. Hale, Mr. Clay, in another speech, July 
26, 1850, said : " But I stand up here for this measure, and I 
do not want the Senator to deal in declamation. I ask him 
vAat right is sacrificed by the Korth in this measure ? Let him 
tell me if the North docs not get almost every thing, and the 
South nothing but her honor — her exemption from usurped au- 
thority to the Texas land, which I have mentioned, together 
with the fugitive slave proposition, and an exemption from agi- 
tation on the subject of slavery in the District of Columl)ia. I 
do not want general broad-cast declamation, but specifications. 
Let us meet them as men, point upon point, argument upon ar- 
gument. Show us the power here to Avhich Northern sacrifices 
are made. Show what sacrifices, icliat is sacrificed by the 
North in this bill. Tliat is what I want." 

The compromise resolutions of Mr. Clay, and the report of 
the Select Committee of Tliirteen, to whom the whole subject 
liad been referred, were in the main sustained by both Houses 
of Congress, but not in form. Listead of one bill, separate bills 



MK. clay's speech. 169 

were Ijronglit in and passed. California was admitted as a 
State, notwithstanding no territorial government had been es- 
tablished over her, and notwithstanding the Constitution pro- 
hibited slavery. Eighteen Southern Senators voted against 
her admission ; and ten Senators presented a protest against 
it, on the ground that the portion of the inhabitants of Cali- 
fornia, who acted in the premises, did so without authority, 
and, in doing so, made an odious discrimination against the 
property of lifteen slaveholding States ; on the ground that the 
bill defeats the right of the slaveholding States to a eonnnon 
or equal enjoyment of the territory of the Union ; on the ground 
that " to vote for the bill would be to agree to a princij^lo that 
may exclude forever, as it does now, the States which x\c repre- 
sent, from all enjoyment of the common territory of the Union '^ ; 
and also on other grounds. This protest the majority of the 
Senate refused to admit into its journal, twenty-tv/o voting 
against admitting it, and nineteen in favor. The bill to estab- 
lish a territorial government over New Mexico and Utah, with 
power to be admitted into the Union either with slavery or 
without slavery, was passed, ten Korthern Senators voting 
against it. The fugitive slave law was passed, twelve Northern 
Senators voting against it. The Texas boundary bill was passed 
by a vote of thirty to twenty. The bill for the abolition of the 
slave-trade in the District of Columbia was also passed. 

In urging the Senate to j^ass these bills, Mr. Clay, in his 
great speech, July 2G, 1850, said : " Will you go home and 
leave all in disorder, confusion — all unsettled, all open ! The 
contentions and agitations of the past will be increased and 
augmented by the agitations resulting from our neglect to de- 
cide them. Sir, we shall stand condemned by all human judg- 
ment below ; and, of that above, it is not for me to speak. Wc 
shall stand condemned in our own consciences, by our own con- 
stituents, and by our own country. * * The bill may be de- 
feated. It is possible that, for the chastisements of our sins or 
transgressions, the rod of Providence may be applied to us, may 
be still suspended over us. But if defeated, it will be a triumph 
of ultraism and impracticability ; a triumph of the most extra- 
ordinary conjunction of extremes ; a victory won by abolition- 
ism ; a victory won by free-soilism ; the victory of discord 



ITO THE SECTIONAL COXTEOVEEST. 

and agitation over peace and tranquillity ; and I pray to Al- 
mighty God that it may not, in consequence of the inauspicious 
result, lead to the most unhapjjy and disastrous consequences 
to our beloved country." 

KEMAJRKS. 

1. The South felt injured by the efibrts made by the Korth 
to exclude her institutions from the territories and the new 
States, on the ground of her unworthiness. She remembered 
the ciForts of the North to prevent Missouri from being admitted 
into the Union upon an equal footing with the other States. 
She not only felt injured but also insulted by these efibrts, 
and by the language used in Congress by Northern men, and 
generally by the Northern press. The Southern States could 
not find any title-deed by which the landed estate was entailed 
upon the North, while the other members of the family were to 
be dismissed dowcrless, and upbraided. 

2. Portions of the North had endeavored to deprive the 
South of her slave representation, by proposing an alteration of 
the Constitution. 

3. Large portions of the people of the North refused to de- 
liver up fugitive slaves on the claim of their masters ; and by 
thus refusing to perform their part of the stipulation, freed the 
South from its full obligations to keep the Constitution in its 
relation to them, as violators of the Constitution. Some of the 
States passed bills designed to obstruct the recovery of fugitive 
slaves. Pennsylvania, in 17S0, passed an act of comity, allow- 
ing masters to bring their slaves into the State, and sojourn 
there six months, without forfeiting them. Pennsylvania in 
time became intolerant, and repealed that act. New York also 
repealed her sojournment act, by which the master was allowed 
to sojourn in the State nine montlis with his slaves, without 
subjecting them to emancipation. The sentiments of the people 
had been such in the Northern States, that it was perfectly safe 
for an owner of slaves, on visitiug the North, to bring such 
of them with him as he needed, without any intermeddling to 
deprive him of their services. That liberal and national senti- 
ment was now giving place to an intolerant, jealous, and inter- 



KEMAKKS. I'fl 

meddling spirit. The present M-riter distinctly remembers tlie 
time when Southern men brought on their slaves to Connecticut 
for a temj)orary sojournment, without experiencing any embar- 
rassment in respect to their slaves, or any indignity to them- 
selves. Tlie present writer also remembers that afterwards, 
when an intolerant spirit became rife in ISTew England, South- 
ern men who brought their slaves simply on a visit to their 
friends and relatives for a few weeks, were informed that slave- 
holders were abhorred of God and despised of men ; while argu- 
ments and persuasions were dishonorably addressed to their 
slaves, to entice them away from their masters. 

4. Slave-stealing organizations were encouraged in the 
ISTorthern States, so that by their agency, with the connivance 
of Northern men, the South lost a large number of slaves and 
a great amount of property annually,, through what was called 
the underground railroad. 

5. Southern clergymen were excluded from ISTorthern pul- 
pits, and Southern Christians from ISTorthern communion tables, 
and Southern students were made uncomfortable by the intol- 
erance of the abolition spirit of the jSTorth. In one of the North- 
ern colleges, a respectable Southern clergyman was invited to 
preach on the Sabbath in the college chapel. Thereupon cer- 
tain abolitionists among the students addressed a petition to the 
president, requesting that the clergyman should be excluded 
from the pulpit, after he had been invited by the proper au- 
thority to occupy it. By this arrogant conduct of these stu- 
dents, who were wise in their own conceits above their teachers, 
the college was thrown into a state of violent fermentation, and 
the Southern clergyman felt himself constrained to decline ful- 
filling his engagement. In justice to that college, it should be 
added, that the students in all the classes, after discussing the 
bearing and nature of the petition for something like half a day 
in a public meeting, passed a vote that the president of the 
college, who was likewise Professor of Divinity, was author- 
ized to supply the pulpit for the instruction of the students as 
he should see fit, without being controlled by the intermeddling 
of the students, thus censuring the petitioners. It should be 
added, that the invitation to the clergyman was not withdrawn 
by the president, or the officer whose place the Southern gen- 
tleman was to fill on that Sabbath. 

12 



172 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

G. Incendiary publications, adapted to produce insurrection 
among the slaves, had been sent by Xortlicrn abolitionists 
through the Southern States by mail. 

7. While the fugitive slave bill was under consideration in 
the Senate, Mr. Davis, of Massachusetts, moved to amend the 
bill in such a "way as to protect free negroes going to Southern 
ports, against seizure and imprisonment. Such persons had been 
seized and imprisoned in Charleston, S. C, and elsewhere, 
under State laws, much to the dissatisfaction of Northern 
States, where these imprisoned negroes were considered as citi- 
zens of the United States, because they were citizens of some 
of the ITorthcrn States. Massachusetts, the acknowledged 
champion of the ISTorth, resolved to try conclusions with South 
Carolina on the constitutionality of those acts of the latter by 
which the negro citizens of the former had been imprisoned. 
For this purpose, Mr. Saiiiuel Hoar was appointed by the 
Governor of Massachusetts, under the authority of the Legis- 
lature, as an agent to collect information concering those citi- 
zens of Massachusetts, who had been imprisoned under the laws 
of South Carolina, and also to prosecute one or more suits in 
])ehalf of any citizen thus imprisoned, for the purpose of having 
tlie legality of such imprisonment tried and determined in the 
Supreme Court of the United States. It was declared in the 
Senate of the United States, " that Massachusetts has been 
anxious to do one single thing, and nothing else, and that is, to 
submit this question to the tribunal which the Constitution has 
provided for its final settlement." If these " laws are decided 
to be constitutional acts, she will acquiesce in the decision." 
Massachusetts thus claimed that, by adopting negroes as her 
own citizens, they should be reckoned elsewhere throughout 
the country as citizens of the United States. 

South Carolina, on the other hand, took the ground, that 
negroes are not citizens of the United States within the meaning 
of the Constitution, and that the emissary sent by Massachusetts 
for the avowed purpose of interfering with her institutions and 
disturbing her peace, should be expelled from her territory. 

The mission of Mr. Hoar, and his expulsion, created bad 
blood in South Carolina and in Massachusetts. Massachusetts 
complained bitterly that she was not allowed by South Carolina 



EEMAEKS. 173 

to try the constitutionality of her claim, that her free negro 
citizens should be considered as citizens of the United States. 
When the question was settled by the Supreme Court, in the 
Dred Scott decision, that negroes are not citizens of the United 
States within the meaning of the Constitution, did Massachu- 
setts acquiesce in the decision ? 

8. There was great dissatisfaction in 'New England with the 
fugitive law, as there would have been with any law which 
would be efficacious in restoring fugitive slaves. The people 
of that section practically refused to obey the fugitive slave 
law of 1793, and also the law of 1850. When Mr. Webster 
announced his intention of supporting a law for the more ef- 
fectual reclamation of fugitive slaves, Mr. Calhoun is said to 
have replied : " What if you do enact such a bill ? The people 
of New England will not submit to it." The fugitive, Si77is, 
was recovered by his owner, but at an exj^ense to him, it Avas 
said, of $3,000, aided though he was by the General Govern- 
ment, and by some of the most able men of Boston. Tlie fugi- 
tive. Burns, was recovered, but at an expense to the Govern- 
ment and his owner of as much as $30,000. The law has been 
practically a dead letter except in a few cases. Thus the South 
lost nearly all that it expected to gain by the Compromise 
Measures of 1850. The JSTorthern States, in this respect, were 
not faithful to the Compromise Measures, as is proved by the 
personal liberty bills passed by different Legislatures, for the 
purpose of throwing obstacles in the way of reclaiming fugitive 
slaves. " The entire moral impossibility of effecting the forcible 
reclamation of fugitive slaves in ISTew England may therefore 
be solemnly regarded as a fixed state of things ; and the great 
problem to be solved by politicians and statesmen is, not how 
they can remove this state of things, but how they shall adapt 
the laws and institutions of the country to it." This language 
from a respectable pamphlet, published in 1850, expresses a 
sentiment that was common in New England at that time. Mr. 
Webster exhorted Massachusetts to " conquer her prejudices " 
on this subject. New England needed the same exhortation, 
though not generally to the same extent, as Massachusetts. 

9. What was the effect of the passage of the Compromise 
Measures upon the country ? Salutary and quieting, at least for 



174 THE SECTIONAL COXTKOVl^KSY. 

a season. The Senators, Cass, Clay, Cobb, Dickinson, Foote, 
and others, -who had j^i'omoted the compromise, were applauded 
h}- the country generally for their efforts to heal the sectional 
difficulties. Mr. Calhoun had died, and Mr. AVebstee had re- 
signed his place for a seat in the cabinet, before the measures 
were ^^assed. Patriotic and moderate men of both political 
parties were generally disposed to be satisfied with the compro- 
mises. The abolition wing of the Whig party and the abolition 
wing of the Democratic party at the Korth were not satisfied 
with the fugitive slave law, and objected to making the North 
a " slave-hunting ground," and witli some intemperance of lan- 
guage denounced " slave-catchers.'' By their united efforts 
they influenced the Legislatures of several Northern States to 
j^ass unconstitutional personal liberty bills for the j)urpose, it 
would seem, of defeating the object of the fugitive slave bill, 
and thus violating their constitutional obligations. 

The following resolution, with some others, passed by the 
Common Council of the city of Chicago, shows the temper of 
the times m certain sections of the Northern States. " Jiesolved, 
that the Senators and Kcpresentatives in Congress from the Free 
States, who aided and assisted in the passage of this infamous 
law, (the fugitive slave law,) and those who basely sneaked 
away from their seats, and thereby evaded the question, richly 
merit the reproach of all lovers of freedom, and are fit only to 
be ranked with the traitors, Benedict Aknold and Judas Is- 
CAKiOT, who betrayed his Lord and Master for thirty pieces of 
silver." 

As the spirit indicated by this resolution prevailed exten- 
sively in tlie Northern States, so it showed itself in tlie enact- 
ment of personal liberty bills by State Legislatures ; in the or- 
ganized support of underground railroads for carrying off" slaves 
to Canada ; and in the rescue by Northern mobs of fugitives 
from the legal officers appointed by the General Government. 
Such an act of a mob the present writer once witnessed, stand- 
ing within a few feet of the commissioner from whom the rescue 
was made. 



CHAPTER Xiy. 

GENERAL PIEKCe's ADMINISTRATION. 
Makcii 4, 1853— March 4, 1857. 

At the election of General Fkanklix Pierce, the Demo- 
cratic candidate, there was not a very extensive sectional feel- 
ing. Both the successful and the unsuccessful candidate, Gen- 
eral Scott, had supporters in both the jSTorthern and the 
Southern sections of the country. The Abolition or sectional 
party threw about 150,000 votes for their candidate. Both the 
Democratic and the Whig national nominating conventions en- 
dorsed the Compromise Measures of 1850. 

Still it must be admitted, that in the Northern States there 
was considerable opposition to one portion of the Compromise 
Measures, namely, the Fugitive Slave Law ; just as there had 
been to the law of 1793, and just as there would have been to 
any law that would be effectual in carrying out the p)rovisioii 
of the Constitution on this subject. Men were clamorous for 
its repeal, though they would retain other portions of the Com- 
promise Measures which never could have been carried through 
Congress, except they had been connected with the fugitive 
slave law. So strong was the opposition to that law, that com- 
munities by mobs or connivance, and State Legislatures by 
personal liberty bills, practically repealed it, and thus violated 
not only the Compromise of 1850, but also the Constitution. 
So strong was this opposition to that law in Boston, that 
Paneuil Hall was closed against Daniel Webster, because he 
had advocated the Compromise Measures. It was on that oc- 
casion that he said, " Massachusetts must conquer her preju- 



170 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEKST. 

dices," Northern men were talking about a " higher law," 
which absolved them from obligation to cany out the provi- 
sions of the Constitution. They shoM'ed as much opposition to 
the Compromise of 1850, as Northern men of the preceding 
generation did to the Missoim Compromise of 1820. There 
was only wanting an occasion to call forth a general sectional 
excitement. That occasion was forthcoming. 

On the 3d of March, 1854, the bill to organize the Terri- 
tories of Kansas and Nebraska, was passed in the Senate by a 
vote of 37 to 14, by which the slavery restriction, passed by the 
Missouri Compromise, was removed, and the people in those 
territories were thus permitted to form their own institutions, 
without the interference of Congress. The intent and meaning 
of the Bill was, that " Congress should neither legislate slavery 
into the territories nor out of them." 

On the introduction of the bill by Mr. Douglas, the chair- 
man of the Committee on Territories, and before he could have 
an opportunity for discussing it, and thus showing to the coun- 
try what were its merits, an " Appeal," in oj^position to it, was 
addressed to the jKojyle of the United States. This Appeal bore 
date Jan. 19, 1854, and was signed by Senators Chase of Ohio, 
and Sumner of Massachusetts, and by members of the House, 
Edwakd Wade and J. E. Giddings of Ohio, Gerritt Smith of 
New York, and Alexander De "Witt of Massachusetts. The 
following is a portion of that appeal : 

" SHALL SLA^^]:RY BE PERMITTED IN NEBRASKA ? " 

" Fellow-Citizens : — As Senators and Representatives in 
the Congress of the United States, it is our duty to warn our 
constituents (?) whenever innninent danger menaces the freedom 
of our institutions and the permanency of our Union. [Were 
the people of the United States their constituents ?] 

" Such danger, as we firmly believe, now imjicnds, and we 
earnestly solicit your prompt attention to it. '- * -' 

" We arraign this bill as a gross violation of a sacred pledge ; 
as a criminal betrayal of precious rights ; as part and parcel of 
an atrocious plot to exclude from a vast unoccupied region emi- 
grants from the Old AVorld, and free laborers from our own 



SHALL SLATEEY BE PERMITTED IN NEBRASKA? 177 

States, and convert it into a dreary region of despotism inhab- 
ited by masters and slaves. 

" "VYe apj)eal to the peojDle. We warn' you that the dearest 
interests of freedom and the Union are in imminent peril. 
Demagogues may tell yon, that the safety of the Union can be 
maintained only by submitting to the demands of slavery. We 
tell you that the safety of the Union can only be insured by the 
full recognition of the just claims of freedom and man. The 
Union was formed to establish justice and secure the blessings 
of liberty. When it fails to accomplish these ends, it will be 
worthless ; and when it becomes worthless, it cannot long- 
endure. 

" We implore Christians and Christian ministers to inter- 
pose. Their Divine religion requires them to behold in every 
man a brother, and to labor for the advancement and regenera- 
tion of the human race. -^ * * 

" Let all protest, earnestly and em.phatically, by corre- 
spondence and through the press, by memorials and resolutions 
of public meetings and legislative bodies, and in whatever mode 
may seem expedient, against this enormous crime." 

Thus addressed, the people of the Northern States promptly 
responded to the call, in the very modes pointed out in this 
proclamation, as the " appeal " was styled in Congress. They 
were combustible, and this " appeal " supplied the torch. Forth- 
with, the Northern regions of the Union were in a blaze of ex- 
citement. The pen, the press, the pulpit, the political forum, 
and the halls of legislation, were Y>\.\t in requisition to resist the 
passage of the bill. As an exponent of the general feeling, the 
" protest " of the clergymen of ISTew England may be taken. 
The object of the protest may be found in the circular which 
was " simultaneously sent to every clergyman in New Eng- 
land," and which was signed by Charles Lowell, Lyman 
Beechee, Baron Stowe, Sebastian Streeter, committee of 
clergymen of Boston, and was dated Feb. 22, 185L " It is 
lioped," that circular declares, " that every one of you will ap- 
pend your names to it, and thus furnish to the nation and the 
age the sublime and influential spectacle of the gi'eat Christian 
hocly of the North (?) united as one man in favor of freedom 
and of solemn plighted faith." 



178 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEEST. 

" If you have already, either as a private Christian or as a 
clergyman, signed any similar document, please to sign this 
also, as it is earnestly desired to embrace in this movement the 
clerical voice of ISTew England. 

" It is respectfully submitted, whether the present is not a 
crisis of sufficient magnitude and imminence of danger to the 
liberties and integrity of our nation, to warrant and even de- 
mand the services of the clergy of all denominations, in arous- 
ing the masses of the people to its v^ompreheusion, through the 
press, and even the pulpit." 



CLEKICAL rUOTEST. 

" To the Honorahle the Senate and House of Representatives in 
Congress assembled : 

" The undersigned, clergymen of different denominations in 
Xew England, hereby m the name of Almighty God, and in 
His presence, do solemnly j^ro^^s^ against what is known as the 
ISTebraska Eill, or any repeal or modification of the existing 
legal prohibition of slavery in that part of the national domain 
which it is proposed to organize into the territories of N^ebraska 
and Kansas. "We protest against it as a great moral wrong, as 
a breach of faith, eminently unjust to the moral principles of 
the community, and subversive of all confidence in national 
engagements ; as a measure full of danger to the peace, and 
even the existence, of our beloved Union, and exposing us to 
the righteous judgments of the Almighty; and your protest- 
ants, as in duty bound, will ever pray. — Boston, Massachusetts, 
March 1, 185i." 

My limits do not allow me to quote the remarks made in 
the Senate respecting the " appeal " and the " protest." The 
ground taken in the " appeal " in opposition to the bill for the 
repeal of the slavery restriction north of 3G^ 30' was, first, that 
it would be contrary to the " original settled policy of the United 
States," as proved by the ordinance of 1787, to permit slavery 
in the territories ; and secondly, that it would be a violation of 
a " sacred pedge," or compact made in 1820, in the Missouri 
Compromise. 



CLEEICAL PKOTEST. 179 

Mr. Douglas denied that it was tlic " original settled 
policy " of the United States to prohibit slavery in the terri- 
tories, inasmuch as slavery was permitted and protected in the 
territory of Tennessee ; and in the legislation respecting Missis- 
sippi, the ordinance of 17S7 was adopted, with the excej)tio7i of 
the anti-slavery clause. 

" That the repeal was a gross violation of a sacred pledge," 
has been extensively denied both before and since its accom- 
plishment. The following are some of the grounds of the 
repeal, in the words of another : 

1. " The South was not bound by that compact or compro- 
mise, because it Avas made without the least consideration ; that 
is, because she received nothing for what she conceded. For 
Missouri, as our adversaries now admit, had a perfect right to 
admission without any stipulation on the part of the South ; 
she had a perfect right to admission, says the Supreme Court 
of the United States, without any such terms or conditions, 
under and by the Federal Constitution alone. If she had to 
pay for this right, it was because the dominant party at the 
ISTorth then took their stand against the Constitution of the 
country, and nothing less, it was believed, would save the 
Union from shipwreck, dissolution, and ruin. The line of 36^ 
30' was then obtained, or rather extorted, without a ' valuable 
consideration.' Here is what is called a nudum pactum, a con- 
tract that is void, and it imposed no sort of obligation either in 
law or in conscience. 

2. " The South was not bound by the Compromise of 1820, 
because it was not fulfilled by the JN^orth." The facts on this 
point are to be found in the preceding pages. 

3. " The South was not bound by the Compromise of 1820, 
because it was unconstitutional," as has since been decided by 
the Supreme Court of the United States. Moreover, some 
!N"orthern statesmen declared they did not esteem it binding as a 
compact, inasmuch as there were no competent parties to it. 

Mr. Douglas, after having spoken of what he deemed the 
impropriety of said " appeal " in the circumstances of its presen- 
tation, uses the following language : " I do not like, I never did 
like, the system of legislation on our part, by which a geo- 
graphical line, in violation of the laws of nature, and climate, 



180 THE SECTIONAL COXTROVEESY. 

and soil, and of the laws of God, should be run to establish in- 
stitutions for a people ; yet out of a regard for the peace and 
quiet of the country, out of respect for past pledges, out of 
a desire to adhere faithfully to all pledges, and out of a desire 
to adhere faithfully to all compromises, I sustained the Missouri 
Compromise so long as it vras in force, and advocated its exten- 
sion to the Pacific. Now when that has been abandoned, when 
it has Leon superseded, wlien a great principle of self-govern- 
ment has been substituted for it, I choose to cling to that prin- 
ciple, and abide in good faith not only by the letter, but by 
the spirit, of the last compromise, (namely, that of 1850, in 
which the right of framing their own constitutions, wdiether by 
the admission or prohibition of slavery, was conceded to Utah 
and New Mexico.) 

'• Sir, I do not recognize the right of the Abolitionists of 
this country to arraign me for being false to sacred pledges, as 
they have done in their proclamation. Let them show when 
and where I have ever violated a compact. I have proved that 
I stood by the compact of 1820 and 1845, and proposed its con- 
tinuance in 1848. I have proved that the Freesoilers and 
Abolitionists were the guilty j)arties who violated that compro- 
mise then. I should like to compare notes with those Abo- 
lition confederates about adherence to compromises. When did 
they stand by or approve of any one that was ever made ? 

" Did not every Abolitionist and Freesoiler in America de- 
nounce the Missouri Compromise in 1820 ? Did they not for 
years hunt down ravenously for his blood every man who 
assisted in making that compromise ? Did they not in 1845, 
when Texas was annexed, denounce all of us who went for the 
annexation of Texas and for the continuation of the Missouri 
Compromise line through it ? Did they not in 1848 denounce 
me as a slavery propagandist for standing by the princij^les of 
the Missouri Compromise, and for proposing to continue the 
Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean ? Did they not 
violate and repudiate it then ? Is not the charge of bad faith 
true as to every Abolitionist in America, instead of being true 
as to me and the committee, and those who advocate this 
bill? 

" They talk about the bill being a violation of the compro- 



CLERICAL PKOTEST. 181 

mise measures of 1S50, Who can show me a man in cither 
House of Congress who was in favor of the compromise 
measures of 1850, and who is not now in favor of leaving the 
people of Nebraska and Kansas to do as they please upon the 
suljject of slavery according to the provisions of my bill ? Is 
there one ? If so, I have not heard of him. This tornado has 
been raised by the Abolitionists, and the Abolitionists alone. 
They have made an impression on the public mind in the way 
wliich I have mentioned, by a falsification of the law and the 
facts ; and this whole organization against the compromise 
measures of 1850 is an Abolition movement. I j)resume they 
had some hope of getting a few tender-footed Democrats into 
their plot; and acting on what they supposed they might do, 
they sent forth publicly to the world the falsehood that their 
address was signed by the Senators and a majority of the 
Representatives from the State of Ohio ; but when we come to 
examine the signatures we find no one Whig there, no one 
Democrat there, none but pure, unadulterated Abolitionists. * * 

" I^ow I ask the friends and the opponents of the measure to 
look at it as it is. Is not the question involved, the simple one. 
Whether the people of the territories shall be allowed to do as 
they please upon the cpiestion of slavery, subject only to the 
limitation of the Constitntion ? "- * ''' 

" When you propose to give them a territorial government, 
do you not acknowledge that they are capable of self-govern- 
ment ? Having made that acknowledgment, why should you 
not allow them to exercise the rights of legislation ? Oh, these 
Abolitionists are entirely willing to concede all this, with one 
exception. They say they are willing to trust the territorial 
legislature, under the limitations of the Constitution, to legislate 
on the rights of inheritance, to legislate in regard to religion, 
education, morals, to legislate in regard to the relations of hus- 
band and wife, of parent and child, and guardian and ward, 
upon every thing pertaining to the dearest rights and interests 
of white men, but they are not willing to trust them to legislate 
in regard to a few miserable negroes. That is their single ex- 
ception. They acknowledge that the people of the territories 
are capable of deciding for themselves concerning white men, 
but not in relation to neo-roes. The real irist of the matter is 



182 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEHST. 

this : Does it require any higher degree of civilization, intelli- 
gence, bravery, and sagacity, to legislate for negroes than for 
white men ? If it does, we ought to adopt the Abolition doc- 
trine and go with them against this bill. If it does not, if we 
are willing to trust the people with the great, sacred, funda- 
mental right of prescribing their own institutions, consistent 
with the Constitution of the country, %ve must vote for this bill 
as reported by the Committee on Territories. That is the only 
question involved in the bill." 

Mr. Cass, while the Nebraska bill was under consideration 
in the Senate, delivered a speech in which the following para- 
graphs are found : 

" Mr. President, for some years we have heard a great deal 
about the fundamental articles of compact, by which govern- 
ments for the territory north-west of the Ohio were origi- 
nally instituted ; and a good many erroneous impressions 
have prevailed concerning them. What were they ? Having 
lived under a territorial government in that region many years 
of my life, the history of the organizations of these political 
communities is perfectly familiar to me. The Congress of the 
old Confederation, in 1787, passed a law establishing the north- 
western territory. It was styled an ordinance, and many have 
supposed that it derived peculiar solenmity from the use of this 
term. But this is a mistake. " Be it ordained," etc., was the 
formula of enactment before the Constitution, and this ordi- 
nance had no more validity than the usual acts of the old Con- 
gress. It has been supposed, too, that the whole of this act 
constituted a compact. That is an equal error. 

" Now, sir, what is a compact ? I have just adverted to the 
dictionary, to the old and standard English lexicographer, to 
ascertain its meaning, and here it is : 'A compact is a contract, 
an accord, or agreement between two or more to do or forbear 
something.' Now, sir, in applying this definition to the case 
before us, let us inquire who were the ' two or more ' parties 
or persons by whom this contract was made? It will be 
hard to find them. Tlie law was passed, as I have said, by the 
old Confederation ; and there never was, in fact, any other 
party to it. What did they undertake to do ? They undertook 
to establish five articles containing various provisions of more 



CLEEICAi PKOTEST. 1S3 

or less importance, affecting the rights and interests of the 
people then occupying, or who might in all time to come oc- 
cupy, the region over which the ordinance extended. And they 
declared that they should never be altered but in the mode 
pointed out. And will any man seriously contend that is a 
compact ? What other party was there to it ? There were some 
thousands of people then living in that country, not one of 
whom heard of this contract, which was forever to bind them 
for years and years after its promulgation. It is an insult to 
common sense to say, that they and their posterity are bound 
by such a one-sided instrument as that. 

" Besides, if there had not been a single man in those re- 
gions, how could a compact be established which was forever 
to operate on a people thereafter to exist there, when no pro- 
vision was made for submitting it to their assent, under any 
circumstances or in any future time ? It is idle, sir, to talk of 
the obligatory nature of a compact thus declared to be such by 
one party, without the existence of any other party at the time, 
and without any arrangement for procuring its concurrence 
when such party should come into existence. This ordinance is 
destitute of the first essence of mutual obligation. 

" But, sir, independent of the fatal objection of the want 
of parties, there was another equally fatal, and that was the 
want of power. Xothing was more certain than that the Con- 
gress of the Confederation had not the slightest authority to 
establish territorial governments ; and there is no man who will 
turn to the Articles of Confederation and examine them, who 
will have the least doubt upon the subject." 

"Mr. Madison said, in speaking upon the subject, ' all this 
has been done,' that is, governments have been organized, 
' without the least color of constitutional authority.' And Mr. 
Adams said ' that the ordinance of 1789 had been passed by 
the old Congress of the Confederation without authority from 
the States.' 

" These remarks prove that the States of the north-west terri- 
tory have full power to establish slavery in them if they see fit. 

" The Senator from Illinois, Mr. Douglas, told us the other 
day, proved to us, indeed, that his State recognized the exist- 
ence of slavery, notwithstanding its eternal interdiction in the 



184 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

ordinance of 1789. And I have never heard, until recently, 
tliat the power of the other north-western States to do the same 
thing was either doubted or denied. If they cannot by their 
conventions regulate the condition of slavery as they please, 
they have not a just political equality in the Union," 

EEMAKKS. 

1. After the ISTebraska bill was passed in the Senate, the 
'• Emigrant Aid Society " was incoq)orated by the Massachu- 
setts Legislature, on the 4th of May, 1854, which was some 
weeks before the bill passed the House and became a law. A 
new charter was received in February, 1855. The object of its 
formation was to make Kansas a free State, by furnishing aid 
to emigrants who would go there for that purpose. The gen- 
eral policy of Massachusetts had been to aid men to stay in the 
Commonwealth, by establishing manufactures, and by other 
means, rather than to aid them to leave it. 

2. The debates in Washington, and the passage of the bill, 
created a powerful sectional excitement throughout the country, 
but esj)ecially in Kansas, where there was a severe struggle be- 
tween the pro-slavery and the Free-soil party for the political 
ascendency. Lecturers went through portions of the JSTorthern 
States to obtain recruits, and money, and arms, describing tlic 
physical advantages of the territory to be such that it could be 
made a terrestrial paradise. The love of adventure, the love of 
money, the love of liberty, and hatred or jealousy of the South, 
were appealed to successfully for obtaining emigrants. Isor 
were Southern men idle. Border ruffians and free State ruffians 
met in Kansas as a battle-ground. And elsewhere " shrieking, 
bleeding Kansas " was successfully employed by demagogues 
to electioneer for them, as the especial friends of liberty, or of 
slavery, as the case might be. Li Congress, too, those who 
spoke on this subject became, if possible, more intemperate in 
their language. Mr. Sumner's speech entitled " The crime against 
Kansas," and Mr. Brooke's assault on him for what he said in 
that speech concerning South Carolina and Senator Butlek, 
were exponents of the feeling which to some extent existed in 
the two sections of the country to wdiich these gentlemen be- 



EEMAKKS. 185 

longed, and proved tlie means of extending that jealousy and 
making it more intense. 

3. Was the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, which was 
the great measure of General Pierce's Administration so far as 
sectional interests were concerned, a judicious measure ? It 
seemed to be the occasion of aggravating, rather than of dimin- 
ishing the sectional difficulties and the sectional hatred. But 
if another course had been taken, it might have proved the oc- 
casion of as great or even greater sectional difficulties and sec- 
tional hatred. In this latter case, perhaps, there might not 
have been an opportunity to ring the changes upon the phrases, 
the " traitor Douglas," the " Kansas swindle." There might 
not have been so much blackguardism and disgraceful person- 
alities in Congress, or as much ruffianism and bad blood gen- 
erated in the States, or as much blood shed in the territory, or 
as many dragon's teeth sown broadcast over the laud which 
have since started up armed men. 

But when we undertake to judge of the comparative wisdom 
of two measures, one of which has been adopted, simply on the 
ground of results, we are in danger of running into error for the 
reason that one term of the comparison is wanting. One class 
of results we never can know, namely, the results of the meas- 
ure that was not adopted. Human passions are refractory sub- 
jects to deal with, especially as exhibited in two great ]3olitical 
parties, jealous of each other, each intent on the acquisition of 
political power, and they will often practically convert the 
wisest measures into causes of national arrogance and injury. 
After the passage of the Kansas and l!s"ebraska bill, if things 
had taken their natural course, and men had emigrated west- 
ward according to the more general practice along the same 
parallels of latitude ; if there had not been any unnatural stimu- 
lus given to emigration by " Emigrant Aid Societies " on the 
one hand, and " Friendly Societies " on the other ; if means had 
not been adopted to address the combativeness of young men 
and to inflame their passions and their conscience, and to appeal 
to their love of gain, and to put arms into their hands, as if they 
were to go against enemies to win an empire, the results of tlie 
repeal of the slavery restriction north of 36"^ 30' might have 
been very different from what they were, and the measure 



186 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEKST. 

might in this case have proved by the results to be a wise 
one. 

In regard to the application of physical force for coiTCCting 
the evils of tlie times connected with slavery, Mr. Sewakd, in 
his speech delivered at Detroit, speaks in the following judicious 
terms : " You ask, how are these great evils to be corrected, 
these great dangers to be avoided ? I answer, it is to be done 
not, as some of you have supposed, by heated debates, sustained 
by rifles and revolvers at "Washington ; nor yet by sending 
armies, and supplies, and Sharp's rifles into Kansas. I con- 
demn no necessary exercise of self-defence in any place where 
public safety is necessary to practice of the real duties of cham- 
pions of freedom. But this is a contest in which the race is not 
to the physically swift, nor the battle to those who have the 
most muscular streugth. Least of all is it to be won by retal- 
iation and revenge." 

It was unfortunate that the geographical line of 3G^ 30', 
established by the Missouri Compromise, was not made the rule 
of division afterwards, by being extended to the Pacific Ocean, 
according to the proposal of Mr. Douglas. It would have pre- 
vented the disputes that afterwards arose. This the ITorthern 
members repeatedly refused to do. Another mode for settling 
the difticulty had to be found, namely, the Constitutional mode. 
If the geographical mode of division adopted in the Compromise 
of 1820 could not be carried out, then the principles of the Com- 
promise of 1850 had to be applied, namely, the principle of 
popular sovereignty. 

In general, it may be asserted that the Missouri Compromise 
never ought to have been made ; that being made, it ought 
not to have been repealed ; and having been repealed, it ought 
never to be restored without some modification. 

4. It is not known to the writer that any similar " appeal " 
by members of Congress, while a question was pending, was 
ever before made to the people of the United States. Neither 
is it known to the writer that any similar " protest " was ever 
addressed to Congress by the clergymen of JSTew England, in 
their professional character, as distinguished from "private 
citizens." 



CHAPTER XV. 

JAMES Buchanan's adjiinistkatiox. 

March 4, 1857— Makch 4, 18G1. 

Mk. Buchanan ■was the candidate of the Democratic party 
throughout both the Northern and the Soutliern States. Mr. 
Fillmore was the candidate of the Union party, embracing 
Conservative Whigs and Americans thronghout the Northern 
and the Southern States. John C. Fkemont was the candidate 
of the Re]3nblican party, which was confined mainly to the 
Xorthern or non-slaveliolding States. This Last party grew up 
out of the troubles and excitements connected with the settle- 
ment of Kansas, and was cemented by a common feeling of op- 
position to slavery and the common hope of gaining political 
power. It was composed, in part, of the old Liberty party and 
of the Freesoil party, and in part of the Abolition wing of the 
Whig party, and in part of others who were disgusted with the 
repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The origin of the party 
has been referred to an anti-ISTebraska convention hold in Au- 
burn, ]^cw York, Sept. 27, 185J:, which 2:)assed the following 
resolution : " liesolvcd that wo recommend that a convention 
of Delegates from the Free States, equal in number to their 
Eepresentatives in Congress, be held in Syracuse, JST. Y., on the 
4th of July, 1856, to nominate candidates for the Presidency and 
the Yice-presidency of the United States for the next presiden- 
tial election." This resolution was adopted by tremendous 
cheering. It was also moved to call this the " Kepublican Or- 
ganization ; " which resolution was also carried. A leading 
member of that same convention declared it to be an object of 
that Republican party to " employ all constitutional measures 

to restrain and cripple slavery where it now exists." 
13 



188 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

The proposed convention was held in Philadelphia, in which 
only the Free States were represented. Among the Resolutions 
passed were the two following : 

" Resolved, That we deny the authority of Congress, of a 
Territorial Legislature, of any individual or association of indi- 
viduals, to give legal existence to slavery in any Territory of 
the United States, while the present Constitution shall be main- 
tained. 

" Resolved, Tliat the Constitution confers upon Congress 
sovereign power over the Territories of the United States for 
their government, and that in the exercise of this power it is 
both the right and the duty of Congress to prohibit in the Terri- 
tories those twin relics of barbarism — polygamy and slavery." 

I do not quote these resolutions to show their evident incon- 
sistency in admitting the sovereignty of Congress over the Ter- 
ritories, with power to prohibit slavery therein ; and then de- 
nying the power to legislate slavery into any Territory, but only 
to exhibit the sectional relations and bearings, and the spirit of 
the convention. The ends aimed at were sectional, as were the 
means used, and the spirit manifested, and the men brought 
forward as candidates. 

IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SECTIONAL? 

Mr. Fillmore, in a speech delivered at Albany, in the sum- 
mer of 1856, not long after his return from abroad, held the fol- 
lowing language in relation to the politics of the country, and 
the approaching election : 

" Sir, you have been pleased to say that I have the union 
of these States at heart. This, sir, is most true ; for if there be 
one object dearer to me than any other it is the unity, prosper- 
ity, and glory of this great Republic. I confess frankly, sir, 
that I fear it is in danger. I say nothing of any particular sec- 
tion, much less of the several candidates before the peoj^le. 
I presume they are all honorable men. But, sir, what do we 
see ? An exasperated state of feeling between the IS'orth and 
the South on the most exciting of all topics, resulting in blood- 
shed and organized military array. But this is not all, sir. We 
see a political party presenting candidates for the Presidency 



THE REPUBLICAN TARTY SECTIONAL. 189 

and tlie Yiee-Presidency selected for the first time from tlic Free 
States alone, witli tlie avowed purpose of electing these candi- 
dates by suffrages from one part of the Union only, to rule over 
the whole United States. 

" Can it be possible that those who are engaged in such a 
measure can have seriously reflected on the. consecpiences -which 
must inevitably follow in case of success ? Can they have the 
madness or the folly to believe that our Southern brethren 
would submit to be governed by such a Chief Magistrate? 
"Would he be required to follow the same rule prescribed by 
those who elected him, in making his appointments ? If a man 
living south of Mason and Dixon's line be not worthy to be 
President or "Vice-President, would it be proper to select one 
from the same cpiarter as one of his cabinet council, or to repre- 
sent the nation in a foreign country, or, indeed, to collect the 
revenue, or administer the laws of the United States ? If not, 
what new rule is the President to adopt for selection to office, 
that the peojDle themselves discard in selecting him ? 

" These are serious but practical questions, and in order to 
appreciate them fully, it is only necessary to turn the tables 
upon ourselves, and suppose that the South, having a majority 
of the electoral votes, should declare that they would only have 
slave-holders for President and Vice-President, and should select 
such by their exclusive suffrages to rule over us at the Xorth, 
do you think we would submit to it ? l^o, not for one moment. 
And do you believe your Southern brethren less sensible on this 
subject than you are, or less jealous of their rights ? If you 
do, let me tell you you are certainly mistaken. And therefore 
you must see, that if this sectional party succeeds, it leads in- 
evitably to the destruction of this beautiful fabric, reared by 
our forefathers, cemented by their blood, and bequeathed to us 
as a priceless inheritance. 

" I tell you, my friends, that I speak warmly on this sub- 
ject, for I feel that we are in danger. I am determined to 
make a clean breast of it. I will wash my hands of the conse- 
quences, whatever they may be ; and I tell you that we are 
treading on the brink of a volcano that is liable at any moment 
to burst forth and overwhelm the nation." 

There were many threats of disunion in case of the election 



190 TUE SECTIOXAL CONTEOVEESY. 

of Mr. Feemont. Mr. Buenett, member of Congress from 
Kentucky, after speaking of the strong attachment of his State 
to the Union, goes on to say : " But, sir, if Jonx C, Fkemont 
should be elected, pledged as he is to make -war upon the insti- 
tutions of the South, composed as liis Administration would be 
of men from one se.ction of the Union, filled as the Federal 
offices would be with sectional men, all pledged to make a com- 
mon cause against the South, with a Congress backing up his 
Administration, such as the present House, who conceive no 
measure too unconstitutional, too revolutionary, too disgraceful, 
to meet their sanction, .so as it makes war upon the South, the 
frightful mien of disunion forces itself on them as far the prefer- 
able alternative between it and oppression and disgrace in the 
Union. They would then still be mindful of its past glories, the 
memories of its great statesmen, the heroic deeds of valor of its 
noted warriors, and prefer rather to cut short its existence than 
blacken those brilliant recollections with the record of its future 
disgrace." This is a type of the feeling that prevailed in the 
South generally, in opposition to the Bepublican party. 

And in the Republican party there was also a spirit of intol- 
erance and disunion. Mr. Horace Gkeelet declared : " I have 
no doubt but the Free and the Slave States ought to be sepa- 
rated ■^'^ "" The Union is not worth supporting in connection 
with the South." Mr. E. P. IIuklbukt, a lawyer in Herkimer, 
New York, made the following declaration : " Rather than ad- 
mit another slave State into the Confederacy, I would dissolve 
it. Rather than endure tlie curse of such another four years' 
governmental infamy as Pierce, Douglas, and Co. have inflicted 
on us, I would dissolve it, so help me Heaven." Mr. G. W. 
JuLiEN, who had been a member of Congress from Indiana, in 
a sj)eech made the following declaration on behalf of the Re- 
publican party : " I tell you we are a sectional party. It is 
not alone a fight between the North and the South ; it is a figlit 
between freedom and slavery ; between God and the Devil ; 
between heaven and hell." [Loud applause.] A. P. Burlin- 
GAME, member from Mass., said : " When we shall have elected a 
President, as we Avill, who will not be the President of a party, 
nor of a section, but the tribune of the people, and after we 
have exterminated a fcAv more miserable doughfaces from the 



THE DEED SCOTT DECISION. 191 

Korth, tlien if tlic slave Senate "U'ill not give way, ^ve will 
grind it between tlie upper and nctlier mill-stone of our power." 
SiMox Bkown, ex-Lieutenant-Governor of Massachusetts, said : 
" The object to be accomplished is this, for the Free States to 
take possession of the Government." Tkuman Smith, ex-Senator 
of Connecticut, declared : " Should Mr. Buchanan be elected, it 
may be written down as certam that, within two years from the 
fourth of March next, Kansas will be delivered up to the Mo- 
lochs of slavery. She will be brought in as a Slave State." 

These extracts show the state of feeling in both sections of 
the country. Extensively at the South there was a determina- 
tion to secede from the Union for the reasons stated by Mr. 
BuENETT, in case Mr. FuEiiONT should be elected President. 



THE DEED SCOTT DECISION. 

Just after President Buchanan's inauguration, the Supreme 
Court of the United States made the famous decision in the case 
of Deed Scott, which seemed to settle certain political cpiestions 
which had long been pending in the public mind. In the act of 
Congress, by which Kansas and ISTebrasha became Territories, the 
slavery restriction which ajjplied to all territoiy north of 36° 30' 
was repealed. Tlie scope and effect of the language of repeal 
were not left in doubt. It was declared in terms to be " the true 
intent and meaning of this act, not to legislate slavery into any 
Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the 
people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their own in- 
stitutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of 
the United States." 

Deed Scott, in the year 1854, was a negro slave belonging 
to Dr. Emeeson, who was a surgeon in the army of the United 
States. In that year. Dr. E:meeson took the said Scott to the 
military post at Eock Island in the State of Illinois, and held 
him there as a slave until April or May, 1856. At the time last 
mentioned, said Dr. E:irEESON removed to the military post at 
Fort Snelling, situated on the west bank of the Mississippi 
River, in the Territory known as Upper Louisiana, acquired by 
the United States from France, and situated north of the lati- 



192 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

tude of 3G° 30' north, and north of the State of Missouri. Dr. 
Emp:rson held the plaintiff, Deed Scott, in slavery nntil the 
year ISoS. The court decided that said Deed Scott did not ob- 
tain title to his liberty from the fact that his master took him 
first from Missouri to Illinois, where negro slavery docs not ex- 
ist by law, and next to the territory north of 3G° 30', -where, by 
the Missouri Compromise, slavery was prohibited. 

In deciding this case upon certain principles, those prin- 
ciples had to be examined and settled. 

1. It was decided that a free negro of the African race, 
whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, 
is not a " citizen " within the meaning of the Constitution of the 
United States. 

2. It was decided that the clauses in the Constitution which 
point to this race, treat them as persons whom it was lawful to 
deal in as articles of property, and to hold as slaves. 

3. It was decided that since the adoption of the Constitution 
of the United States, no State can by any subserpient law make 
a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of the 
United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges se- 
cured to citizens by that instrument. 

4. The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to 
the African race, which has taken place since the adoption of 
the Constitution, cannot change its construction and meaning, 
and it must be construed and administered now, according to 
its true meaning and intentions, when it was framed and 
adopted. 

5. The clause in the Constitution authorizing Congress to 
make all needful rules and regulations for the government of 
the territory and other property of the United States, applies 
only to territory within the chartered limits of some one of the 
States when they were colonies of Great Britain, and which 
was surrendered by the British Government to the old Confed- 
eration of States, in the Treaty of peace. It does not apply to 
territory acquired by the present Federal Government, by treaty 
or conquest from a foreign nation. 

6. During the time it remains a territory. Congress may legis- 
late over it within the scope of its constitutional powers in re- 
lation to citizens of the United States, and may establish a Ter- 



helper's book. 193 

ritorial Government, and the form of this local government 
must be regulated by the discretion of Congress, but with 
powers not exceeding those which Congress itself, by the Con- 
stitution, is authorized to exercise over citizens of the United 
States, in respect to their rights of persons or rights of property. 

7. The territory thus acquired, is acquired by the people of 
the United States for tlieir common and equal benefit, through 
their agent or trustee, the Federal Government ; Congress can 
exercise no power over the rights of persons or property of a 
citizen in the Territory, which is prohibited by the Constitution. 
The Government and the citizens both enter it with their re- 
spective rights defined and limited by the Constitution. 

8. Congress has no right to prohibit the citizens of any par- 
ticular State or States from taking up their home there, while 
it permits citizens of other States to do so. Kor has it a right 
to give privileges to one class of citizens which it refuses to do 
to another. The territory is acquired for their equal and com- 
mon benefit, and if open to any, it must be open to all upon 
equal and the same tenns. 

9. Every citizen has a right to take with him into the terri- 
tory, any article of property which the Constitution of the 
United States recognizes as property. 

10. The Constitution of the United States recognizes slaves 
as property, and pledges the General Government to protect it. 
And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property 
of that description, than it may constitutionally exercise over 
property of any other kind. 

11. The act of Congress, therefore, prohibiting a citizen of 
the United States from taking with him his slaves when he re- 
moves to the territory in question to reside, is an exercise of 
authority over private property Avhich is not warranted by tlie 
Constitution ; and the removal of the plaintifi" by his owner to 
that territory gave him no title to freedom. 

helper's book. 

After the nomination for Speaker in the House of Kepresent- 
atives for the 36th Congress, on Dec. 5, 1859, Mr. Clark, 
member from Missouri, ofiered the following; resolution : 



194 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVERSY. 

" "Whereas certain members of this House, now in nomination 
for Si^eaker, did endorse and recommend the book hereinafter 
mentioned, 

" licsolvcd, That the doctrines and sentiments of a certain 
book, called ' The impending crisis of the South — How to meet 
it,'' purporting to have been written by one IIinton Eowan 
Helper, are insurrectionary and hostile to the domestic peace and 
tranquillity of the country, and that no member of this House, 
who has endorsed and recommended it, or the compend from it, 
is fit to be Speaker of this House." 

The design of the book was to hasten the crisis which it pre- 
dicts as " impending," by detailing the wretchedness of the 
Slave States ; " the aim of the revolution " desired ; " the stupid 
masses in the South," who are described as the " white victims" 
of slavery ; the results as the " sum of all villanies," as slavery 
is described to be ; the dej)endence of the South on the ISTorth 
for the necessary or the convenient articles of life ; with " a 
revolutionary appeal to Southern non-slaveholders ; " with 
the declaration that " the North must seize the riches of the 
South," and " that the revolution must free the slaves ; " and 
that the l^orth is too scrupulous ; that the revolution must take 
place, " peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must." 

" The hanner to stand or die ly. Inscribed on the banner 
which we herewith unfurl to the world, with the fixed deter- 
mination to stand by it or die by it, unless one of more virtuous 
efiicacy shall be presented, are the mottoes which in substance 
embody the principles, as we conceive, that should govern us in 
our patriotic warfare against the most subtle and insidious foe 
that ever menaced the inalienable rights, and liberties, and dear- 
est interests of America." 

" 1. Thorough organization and independent political action 
on the part of the non-slaveholding whites at the South. 

"2. Ineligibility of pro-slavery slaveholders; never another 
vote to any one who advocates the retention and perpetuation 
of human slavery. 

" 3. No co-operation with pro-slavery ; no fellowship with 
them in religion ; no affiliation with them in society. 

" 4. No patronage to pro-slavery merchants ; no guestship in 
pro-slavery hotels ; no fees to pro-slavery lawyers ; no employ- 



HELPER S BOOK. 195 

ment of pro-slaveiy physicians ; no audience to pro-slavery 
parsons. 

" 5. No more hiring of slaves by non-slaveholders. 

" 6. Abrupt discontinuance of subscription to pro-slavery 
newspapers. 

" 7. The greatest possible encouragement to free white labor." 

These are portions of the extracts from Helpee's book, 
which, at the request of the mover, were read by the clerk of 
the House. Portions omitted are more outrageously bitter and 
insulting than the portions quoted. 

Mr. Clakk, the mover of the resolution, after the reading 
of the extracts, proceeded to say : " I have had that document 
read, in order that the country, as well as this body, might be 
informed of the position held by certain gentlemen of the lie- 
publican party, and especially by those who have been recom- 
mended for the Speakership of this House. The extracts which 
have been read, are, in substance, true extracts from the book 
itself, which is in the House. Those extracts have been exam- 
ined and marked. It appears by those extracts that nearly all 
the Republican members of the last Congress, and certain mem- 
bers of the present, recommended certain things to the non- 
slaveholders of the South ; and among them, non-fellowship 
either socially or politically, with slaveholders. If such be the 
purpose of the gentlemen of this House who signed that paper, 
let me ask, has it indeed come to this, that gentlemen of the 
!N^ortli who live under institutions secured to them by the Con- 
stitution of their country, which institutions Ave have never at- 
tempted to invade ; that gentlemen living in a bond of union, 
and under a Constitution that cost so much blood and so much 
treasure, and under which, by the co-operation of both Xortli 
and South, our country has grown to its present strength and 
importance — has it come to this, that tlicy have got their own 
consent, and expect the country will agree to it, to advise those 
of the South who do not happen to own slaves, to rise in rebel- 
lion and destroy the slave interest, part by non-intcrcourso in 
religion, or socially or politically ; and then by advising them 
not to wait to strike the blow until their arms are powerless, 
but to exterminate the odious institution, peaccablj' if they can, 
forcibly if they must ? Such are the directions recommended 



19G THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEEST. 

by the paper which was signed by at least two members of this 
Ilouse, who have been recommended by the Eepublicans for 
the Speakership. "'•" "'' 

" Sir : Do these gentlemen suppose that slaveholders who 
have won the confidence of tlieir constituents, and wlio have 
been sent here to assist in making laws and preserving the Con- 
stitution, and keeping the Government intact, feel themselves 
honored by their association ? If they do, they are greatly de- 
ceived. We have been on terms of personal intimacy with 
them. Every gentleman in this House who knows me, knows 
that my intercourse witli them has been marked with the ut- 
most urbanity. I have met Representatives in this Hall coming 
from all parts of the country, as my compeers in every relation 
in life. But can I continue to do so, except gentlemen disclaim 
having advised my constituents — half of whom are non-slave- 
holders, to have no intercourse with me ; not to visit the church 
where I worship ; to strike down and ostracize slaveholding 
ministers ; to abandon hotels where there are slave waiters ; to 
discountenance patronage to newspapers that are conducted by 
slaveholders ? If they expect to play this game, the sooner it 
is avowed the better. '-^ * 

" These gentlemen come in and say that the riches of the 
South are neglected by the bad management of the South ; 
that the accursed plague of slavery does it ; and, therefore, that 
the non-slaveholders of the South should rise in their majesty — 
peaceably if they can, forcibly if they must — take their arms, 
drive out the plague of slavery, take possession of the country, 
and dedicate it to freedom. 

" That is the sentiment of the book which those gentlemen 
recommend to have circulated gratuitously all over the South. 
Are such men fit to preside over the destinies of our common 
country ? " 

In this book occurs the following paragraph : " This is the 
outline of our scheme for the obliteration of slavery in the 
Southern States. Let it be acted upon with due promptitude, 
and as certain as truth is mightier than error, fifteen years will 
not elapse before every foot of territory from the mouth of the 
Delaware to the Eio Grande will glitter with the jewels of free- 
dom." 



THE JOHN BROWN INVASION. 197 

Tliere was a siibscrij)tion set on foot in tlie city of New York 
for the gratuitous distribution of one hundred thousand copies. 
To the fund thus raised, it was said that the Governor of New 
York contributed one hundred dollars. 

Besides tlie sixty-eight members of Congress who recom- 
mended Helper's book, Senator Wade of Ohio said : " I had 
looked over the book, and saw nothing objectionable." Senator 
Seward also spoke favorably of it. 

A portion of a pamphlet was read, Dec. 20, 1859, at the re- 
quest of Mr. Yallandigham, " which was extensively circulated 
in the Northern, Southern, and "Western States of this Union, 
and which contains the plan of associations to be formed for the 
purpose of carrying on hostilities against a portion of this Con- 
federacy." After certain annunciation of principles, and after 
certain preliminaries, it was proposed " to land military forces 
in the Southern States, who shall raise the standard of freedom, 
and call the slaves to it, and such free persons as may be will- 
ing to join it. 

" Our plan is to make war openly or secretly as circum- 
stances may dictate, upon the property of the slaveholders and 
their abettors, not for its destruction, if that can be easily 
avoided, but to convert it to the use of the slaves. If it cannot 
thus be converted, we advise its destruction. Teach the slaves 
to hum their masters' h^dlcUngs, to kill their cattle and liogs, to 
conceal and destroy farming iitensils, to abandon labor in seed 
time and harvest, and let the crops perish. Make slave labor 
unprofitable in this way if it can be done in no other. 

"To make slaveholders objects of derision and contempt by 
flogging them whene\'er they shall be guilty of flogging their 
slaves." 

This plan John Brown attempted to carry into practice. 

Mr. Sherman, the candidate for the Speakership, and against 
whose election Mr. Clark's resolution was introduced, as one 
of the signers of the recommendation of Helper's book, was de- 
feated. 

THE JOHN EKOWN INVASION. 

John Brown, in the autumn of 1859, with twenty-three 
others, obtained forcible possession of the armory at Harper's 



19S THE SECTIOXAL CONTROVERSY. 

Ferry, Yirginia. In the Senate of the United States, M;. 
Mason, Senator from Virginia, brought forward a resohition to 
appoint a committee to investigate the facts in the case. This 
resolution at its introduction liad to encounter an amendment 
offered by Mr. Trumbull, of Ilhnois, designed, it was asserted, 
to embarrass the action of the Senate in the matter. It also 
had to encounter the argument and ridicule of Senator Hale, 
in the same body. 

Mr. Hale, of ISTew Hampshire, December 6 : " I am free to 
say, sir, that while I desire now, as I have always desired, this 
Union may be perpetual, I confess I do see danger to it. I do 
not see danger from any thing we are doing in the Free States, 
not the slightest ; but I do see danger to this Union from the 
continued obloquy, reproach, and crimination which is heaped 
upon the people of the Free States, every time there is any 
thing calling attention to the subject in the South. * * 

" I do not see, for myself, how Southern gentlemen can con- 
sent to live in a Union, if they believe that those who are asso- 
ciated with them are the characters which the public press rep- 
resent us to be ; if we are so utterly false not only to the oaths 
that we have taken to support the Constitution, but to the 
moral obligations which ought to bind us as patriots and Chris- 
tians. If the sentiment, that we are so utterly wanting in all 
those qualities of character, is to be continually and eternally 
iterated and re-iterated from one of the sections of the country, 
where these transactions may take place, to the other, there will 
be a feeling generated which will be fatal to the Union." 

Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, on the same day spoke as follows : 
" Mr. President, I rise to express my surprise at the manner in 
which the resolution offered by my colleague has been received 
— a resolution temperate, proper, and made essentially neces- 
sary by circumstances of recent occurrence. I had j^resumcd 
that no obstacle would be thrown in the way, but that Senators 
on all sides of the House would agree to go into the inquiry. 

" It is known to all that a most atrocious outrage has been 
committed upon the State which I have the lienor in part to 
represent ; that the people of a town rei^osing in the hours of 
night, in all the confidence of peace and conscious innocence of 
all purposes of wrong to mankind, were suddenly invaded, and 



\ 

THE JOHN BKOWN INVASION. 199 

attacked by a band of armed men from non-slaveliolding States ; 
that miarmed men were shot down in the streets ; that mnrders 
were committed ; that an attempt was openly made, not only to 
subvert the Constitution of the United States, but the Constitu- 
tion of Virginia ; that men were seized and dragged from their 
habitations at night, and that attempts were made to excite ser- 
vile insurrection and civil war in its most horrid form. It is 
known too, sir, that complicity has been charged, not on the 
part of the South, but by individuals professing to have been 
in the employment of persons and associations in the non-slave- 
holding States ; and it is also known to those who come from 
the South, at least, that the public mind has been startled, not 
so much by the foray of Beown and his twenty-three men, as 
by the open sympathy and approbation which have been man- 
ifested by portions of the ISTorth in regard to that attempt, and 
the apparent indifference with which it has been treated by 
those who, we had a right to hope, would have been more con- 
servative in their feelings and actions upon such a subject. 

" Sir, I had supposed that such indecent exhibitions of sym- 
pathy for crime would have been frowned down by an outburst 
of public opinion on the part of those in the midst of Avhom 
such things were perpetrated. '-^ "'"' 

" And now, sir, when my colleague proposes, in temperate 
language, merely to inquire into the facts of the case, and to 
raise a committee to see whether any thing can be done by 
the authorities of this Government to j^revent the repetition of 
such outrages, how is it met ? The Senator from Illinois pro- 
poses to stifle such inquiry by making a party issue, and turn- 
ing the whole subject into a matter of mere partisan warfare 
and discussion. ''' ''^ 

" Still less had we supposed that such a question was to 
be met with the levity of the Senator from New Hampshire. 
Why, sir, upon such occasions as these, upon such occasions as 
this — I will not say as these, for it has no parallel in the history 
of our Government — to see such a subject treated with the lev- 
ity in which he is disposed to deal with it, sounds to me, at 
least, like the laugh of the inebriate or the insensate in the 
chamber of death itself. I tell him, sir, that much depends 
upon what is the real state of Northern feeling in regard to 



200 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

these matters. We know that we can defend ourselves against 
such outrages as this ; against the forays of men who may at- 
tempt to get up servile war among us ; we hope we can defend 
ourselves against all the hazards to which we may probably be 
exposed ; but it becomes a much graver question to say, how 
we are to deal with the subject if we become convinced that 
such attempts find support not only in the sympathy of the 
great mass of the iSTortli, but in contributions that may be act- 
ually raised for their assistance." 

Mr. Douglas, Jan. 23, 18C0 : " Without stopping to adduce 
evidence in detail, I have no hesitation in expressing my firm 
and deliberate conviction that the Ilarjjcr's Ferry crime was 
the matured, logical, inevitable result of the doctrines and 
teachings of the Eepublican party, explained and enforced in 
their j^latforra, their partisan presses, their pamphlets and 
books, and especially of their leaders in and out of Congress. * 

" The great principle that underlies the organization of the 
Republican party is — violent, irreconcilaUe, eternal warfare upon 
the institution of American slavery, with a view to its ultimate 
extinction throughout the land. Sectional war is to be waged 
until the cotton fields of the South shall be cultivated by free 
labor, or the rye fields of ISTew York and Massachusetts shall be 
cultivated by slave labor." 

SYilPATHT WITH BEOWN. 

Tlie admirers of John Brown made a distinction between 
his acts and his character, the means he employed and the end 
which he aimed at. The acts and the means they condemned, 
while his character and the end he aimed to accomplish they 
seemed to approve and admire. It appears that he spent some 
years in Kansas, where, being possessed by an evil spirit, he 
perpetrated acts which were denominated murder, theft, and 
robbery. " It cannot be disguised that the Northern heart sym- 
pathized with Broavn and his fate because he died in the cause 
of what they call liberty." On the day of his death bells were 
tolled in many places ; cannon fired ; prayers were ofi'ercd for 
him as if he were a martyr ; he was placed in the same category 
with Paul and Silas, for whom prayers were made by the 



PEESONAL LIBERTY BILLS. 201 

Churcli ; clinrclies were draped in mourning ; a motion was 
made in tlie Senate of Massachnsetts, " tliat, in view of tlic fact 
that this was tlie day on which Jonx Beown was sentenced to 
be hanged, the Senate do now adjourn." The motion was lost ; 
the vote being 8 to 11. There were twenty absentees, wlio 
shirked the question. There was also a strong sympathy in the 
House for Beowx, though that, likewise, by a large majority 
refused to adjourn. It was moved in the House, " that for the 
great respect we have for the truthfulness and faith that John 
Beown had in man and his religion, and the strong sympathy 
for the love of liberty (the avowed principle of Massachusetts) 
for which he is this day to die, this House do now adjourn." 
Massachusetts elected, as governor, a man who presided at a 
meeting assembled to express sympathy for Beown. What was 
true of the general sentiment in favor of Beown in portions of 
Massachusetts, was true of many localities elsewhere in the Free 
States. This sectional sympathy at the Korth increased the 
sectional jealousy at the South. 

PEESOK-AL LIBERTY BILLS. 

Tlie effect of " personal liberty bills," was to throw obstruc- 
tions in the way of carrying out the provisions of the Constitu- 
tion for the restoration of fugitive slaves to their owners. 

States which prohihit their officers and citizens from aiding 
in the execution of the fugitive slave laws of 1793 and 1850 : 
Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, Yermont, 
YTisconsin, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jer- 
sey, Rhode Island. 

States that deny all lyuVlic edifices in aid of the mastcT : 
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Yermont, Ehode Island. 

States that provide defence for the fugitive : Maine, Massa- 
chusetts, Pennsylvania, "Wisconsin, Yermont, New York, Mich- 
igan. 

States which declare the fugitives free, if brought hy their 
masters into the State : Maine, Yermont, New Hampshire. 

State that declares him to he free absolidely : New Hamp- 
shire. See Report of the Committee of the 

Legislature of Yirginia in 1860. 



202 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEESY. 

EXTRACT FEOM A PERSONAL LIBERTY BILL OF YEEMONT. 

" Every person -who may have been licld as a slave, vrlio 
sliall come or who may be Lroiiglit into this State, with tlie 
consent of his or her alleged master or mistress, or who shall 
come or he hrouffht, or shall he in this State^ shall he free. 

" Every person who sliall hold, or attempt to hold, in this 
State in slavery as a slave, any free person, in any form or for 
any time, however short, under the pretence that such person 
is or has been a slave, shall, on conviction thereof, be impris- 
oned in the State prison for a term not less than five years, nor 
more than twenty, and be fined not less than $1,000, nor more 
than 810,000." 

Mr. AVebster, in his seventh of March speech, spoke as fol- 
lows : '• I will allude to other grounds of comjjlaint of the South, 
and especially to one which, in my opinion, furnishes just foun- 
dation of complaint, and that is, that there has been found at 
the Korth among individuals, and among legislatures, a disin- 
clination to perform fully their constitutional duties, in regard 
to the return of persons bound to service, who have escaped into 
the free States. In that resj^ect the South, in my judgment, -is 
right, and the l!^orth wrong. Every member of every Northern 
legislature is bound by oath, like every other officer in the coun- 
try, to support the Constitution of the United States ; and the 
article of the Constitution which says to these States, that they 
shall deliver up fugitives from service, is as binding in honor 
and conscience as any other article." 

Mr. "Webster, in liis speech at Capon Springs, Virginia, in 
1851, said : " I do not hesitate to say and repeat, that if the 
Northern States refuse wilfully and deliberately to carry into 
effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restora- 
tion of fugitive slaves, the South would no longer be bound to 
keep the compact. A bargain broken on one side, is broken on 
all sides." 

IS SLAVERY A MERE CREATURE OF LOCAL LAW? 

Judge Story, of the Supreme Court of the United States, 
in the decision in the Prigg case, declared that slavery is a mere 
creature of local law. This opinion became fashionable at the 



IS SLAVERY A MERE CREATURE OF SOCIAL LAW? 203 

Xortli. But the same eminent jndge, in 1S27, wrote to Lord 
Stowel, that he fully concurred with him in his decision, in which 
he says that slavery " never was in Antigua the creature of law, 
but of that custom which operates with the force of law." Lord 
Stowel, in that decision, in effect says, that " the slave who 
goes to England or to Massachusetts, from a slave State, is still a 
slave, that he is still his master's property ; but that his master 
has lost control over him, not by reason of the cessation of his 
property, but because those States grant no remedy by which 
he can exercise his control," An invention is in the hisfhest 
sense the property of the inventor, and a work, of its author, but 
their rights of property cannot be enforced unless there are 
patent laws and copyright laws. In barbarous countries, the 
rights of property exist, though they cannot be enforced by law. 

Judge McLeax, in the Prigg case, said : " But the inquiry 
is reiterated. Is not the master entitled to his 2)'>'operty ? I an- 
swer that he is. His right is guaranteed hy the Constitution : 
and the most summary means are found for its enforcement in 
the act of Congress." The right of property in slaves exists un- 
der the Constitution. In the history of the rights of property, 
it appears that these rights have existed prior to any written 
law, and were protected by common law. " The current sug- 
gestion that slave property exists but by local law is no more 
true of this than it is of all other property. In fact, the Euro- 
pean socialists, who in wild radicalism (including the Assigna- 
tion doctrine) are the correspondents of the American abolition- 
ists, maintain the same doctrine as to all property, that the 
Abolitionists do as to slave property. He who has property, 
they argue, is the robber of him who has not. And the same 
precise theory of attack at the ISTorth upon the slave property 
of the South, would, if carried out to their legitimate, necessary, 
and logical consequences, and will, if successful in this, their 
first stage of action, superinduce attacks on all property, JSTorth 
and South." — Caleb Cushixg. 

" In the treaty with Great Britain formed in 17S2, stipula- 
tions were entered into that prisoners on both sides shall be set 
at liberty, and his Britannic Majesty shall, with all convenient 
speed, and without causing any distinction or carrying away 
any negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, c'cc," 
14 



204 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVERST. 

signed by Eiciiard Oswald, B. Fkanklix, John Jay, Henry 
Laurens. Thus the two nations recognized the right of property 
in negroes. 

Li the treaty of 1814, there is a similar provision in regard 
to " slaves and other property." This treaty was signed by 
Gambiee, Henry Coulbouen, William Adams, John Qulnxy 
Adams, J. A. Bayard, Henry Clay, Jonathan Russell, Al- 
bert Gallatin. If such men could thus recognize the riglit 
of property in slaves, why should not others ? 

" It is historically well known, that the object of this clause 
in the Constitution relating to persons owing service and labor 
in one State escaping into another, was to secure to the citizens 
of the slaveholding States the complete right and title of owner- 
ship in their slaves, as property in every State of the Union, 
into which they might escape from the State whence they were 
held in servitude."— Judge Story, 16 Peters' Be^orts, p. 540. 

northern abolition and disunion sentiments. 

Mr. Lincoln addressed a speech to the Bepublican State 
Convention assembled in Illinois in June, 1858, of which the 
following is an extract : 

" In my opinion it (the slavery agitation) will not cease 
until a crisis shall have reached and passed. A house divided 
against itself cannot stand. I believe this Government cannot 
endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect 
the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. 
It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the op- 
ponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place 
it where the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in a 
course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push forward 
until it shall become alike lawful in all the States — old as well 
as new, JSTorth as well as South." 

Li his Bochcster speech in 1858, Senator Seward tells us 
" that the States must all become free, or all become slave ; that 
the South, in other words, must conquer and subdue the North, 
or the North must triumph over the South, and drive slavery 
from its limits." 

" It is an irrepressible conflict," he says, " between opposing 



jSrOETHEKN ABOLITION AKD DISUNION SEJsTIMENTS, 205 

and ordinary forces ; and it means tliat the United States 
must all become either entirely a slaveliolding nation, or entirely 
a free labor nation. Either the cotton and rice fields of South 
Carolina, and the sugar plantations of Louisiana, will ultimately 
be tilled by free labor, and Charleston and Kew Orleans become 
marts for legitimate merchandise alone, or else the rye fields 
and wheat fields of Massachusetts and ]^ew York must again 
be surrendered by them to slave culture and to the j)roduction 
of slaves, and Boston and New York become once more markets 
for trade in the bodies and souls of men," 

" Slavery can be limited to its present bounds. It can be 
ameliorated. It can and must be abolished, and you and I can 
and must do it." — Mr. Sewakd in Ohio, 1848. 

Kev. Mr. Wheelock addressed a lars-e cono;reo-ation in 
Dover, New Hampshire, in a sermon, of which the following is 
an extract : " It is a great mistake to term this act (Beown's) 
the beginning of bloodshed and war. Never could there be a 
greater error. "We have had bloodshed and war for the last ten 
years. The campaign began on the 7th of March, 1850. The 
dissolution of the Union dates ft-om that day, and ice have had 
no constitution since. On that day Daniel Webster was put 
to death — and such a death ! And from that time to this, there 
has not been a month that has not seen the soil of freedom in- 
vaded and attacked, our citizens kidnapped, imj^risonecl, and 
shot, or driven by thousands into Canada," 

Gov. Chase said to W. D. Chadwick Glover, Dec. 27, 1859 : 
" I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love 
him, but because I hate his master. I hate slavery. I hate a 
man that will own a slave," 

" There is really no union now between the North and the 
South ; and he believed no two nations on the earth entertain 
feelings of more bitter rancor towards each other, than these 
two nations of the Republic. Tlie only salvation, therefore, of 
the Union is to be found in dividing it entirely from the taint 
of slavery." — Senator "Wade, of Ohio, in Maine. 

" I have read the Impending Crisis of the South with great 
attention. It seems to me a work of great merit ; rich yet ac- 
curate in statistical information, and logical in analysis." — 
Williasi H. Sewakd, 1859. 



206 THE SECTIOX.U. CONTEOTEEST. 

" The time is fast approaching when the ciy will become too 
overpowering to resist. Eatlier than tolerate national slavery 
as it now exists, let the Union be demolished at once, and then 
the sin of slavery will rest where it belongs." — New Yorh Trib- 
une. 

" I have no doubt but the free and slave States ought to be 
separated. * "'^ ■'■•'. The Union is not worth supporting in 
connection with the South." — Idem. 

A leadino; member of the Convention that nominated Mr. 
Fremont, namely, James Watson Webb, uttered the following 
as the sentiment of the people : " They (the people) ask us to 
give them a nomination which, when fairly put before the 
people, will unite public sentiment, and through the ballot-box 
will restrain and repel the pro-slavery extension, and this ag- 
gression of tlie slaveocracy. What else are they doing ? They 
tell you that they are willing to abide by the ballot-box, and 
willing to make that the last appeal. If we fail there^ what 
then ? We will drive it back sword in hand, so help me, God ! 
Believing them to he right, I am with themP "This sentiment 
was loudly cheered by the Convention." In July, 18G0, he de- 
clared : " If a Southern State should attempt to resist, she will 
be made to submit, and bear herself with deference and resj^ect 
thereafter to those who are morally and socially her equals, and 
2)olit'icalbj ?i\\(\. 2)hy sic ally her superiors, and when provoked to 
demonstrate it, if need be, her masters." 

On page 648 of the Congressional Globe, of the first Session 
of the thirty-thii-d Congress, Mr. Giddings, Member of Congress 
from Ohio, is reported to have spoken as follows : 

" When the contest shall come ; when the thunder shall roll, 
and the lightning tlash ; when the slaves shall rise in the South ; 
when, in emulation of the Cuban bondmen, the Southern slaves 
shall feel that they are men ; when they shall feel the stirring 
emotions of immortality, and shall recognize the stirring truth 
that they are men, and entitled to the rights that God has be- 
stowed upon them ; when the slaves shall feel that, and when 
masters shall turn pale and tremble, when their dwellings shall 
smoke, and dismay shall sit on each countenance, then, sir, I do 
not .say, we shall laugh at your calamity and mock when your 
fear cometh ; but I do say, that when that time shall come, the 



NOETIIEKN ABOLITION AND DISUNION SENTIMENTS 207 

lovers of our race will stand forth and exert tlie legitimate 
powers of this Government for freedom. We shall then have 
constitutional powder to act for the good of our country, and do 
justice to the slave. Then will we strike off the shackles from 
the limbs of the slave. Then will be a period when this Gov- 
ernment will have power to act between slavery and freedom, 
and when it can make peace by giving freedom to the slaves. 
And let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, tliat time hastens. It is 
rolling forward. The President is exerting a power that will 
hasten it, though not intended by him. I hail it as I do the 
dawn of that political and moral millennium, which I am well 
assured will come on the earth." 

" It is written in the Constitution of the United States, that 
five slaves shall count equal to three freemen, as a Imsis of rep- 
resentation, and it is written also, in violation of the Divine 
Law, that we shall surrender the fugitive slave who takes refuge 
at our fireside from his relentless pursuer." — Senator Sewaed in 
Ohio, ISiS. 

In an address delivered in Boston, 1855, Mr. Buklingame, 
Member of Congress, said : " If asked to state particularly what 
he would do, he would answer, first, repeal the ISTebraska bill ; 
second, repeal the fugitive slave law ; third, abolish slavery in 
the District of Columbia ; fourth, abolish the internal slave 
trade ; next, he would declare that slavery should not spread one 
inch in the Union ; he would then put the Government actually 
and perpetually on the side of freedom. * * * He would 
have judges that believed in a higher law ; an anti-slavery 
Constitution, an anti-slavery Bible, and an anti-slavery God. 
Having thus denationalized slavery, he would not menace it in 
the States where it now exists, but would say to the States, It is 
your local institution ; ling it to your bosom until it destroys 
you. But he would say, you must let our freedom alone. [Ap- 
plause.]. If you but touch the hem of her garment we will 
trample you to the earth. [Loud applause.] This is the only 
condition of repose, and it must come to this." 

On the 9th of June, 1841, John Quincy Adams said " that, 
in the event of a servile war, his own opinion would be, that if 
the free portion of people of this Union were called upon to 
support the institutions of the South by suppressing the slaves, 



208 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEESY. 

{ind a servile war in consequence of it, in that case lie wonld 
not say that Congress had no right to interfere with the institu- 
tions of the Soutli ; that the very fact, perhaps, that the free por- 
tion of the people of this Union were called to sacrifice their blood 
and their treasure for the purpose of suppressing a war in a case 
in which a most distinguished Southern man, the author of the 
Declaration of Independence, had declared that in that event 
the Almighty had no attribute that sided with the master, he 
would say, that if the free portion of this Union were called 
upon to expend their blood and their treasure to support that 
cause which had the curse and the displeasure of the Almighty 
upon it, he would say, that this same Congress would sanction 
an expenditure of blood and treasure, for that cause itself would 
come within the constitutional action of Congress, and there 
M'ould be no longer any pretension that Congress had not the 
right to interfere with the institutions of the South, inasmuch 
as the very fact that the people of the free portion of the Union 
marching to the support of the masters would be an interference 
with those institutions ; and that in the event of a war the re- 
sult of which no man could tell, the treaty-making power came 
to be equivalent to universal emancij^ation." 

" Mr. Ingeesoll, Membcx* from Pennsylvania, interrui^tcd 
Mr. Adajis Avith the expression of the deejiest indignation of 
his soul at the utterance of such a doctrine." 

On the 21st of February, 1843, Mr. Dellet, of Alabama, 
asked Mr. Adams whether he understood him on another occa- 
sion to say, " that in God's good time the abolition of slavery 
would come, and let it come." 

Mr. Dellet asked Mr. Adajvis if he understood him. 

Mr. Adams nodded assent, and said with great earnestness, 
" Let it come." 

Mr. Dellet. Yes, let it come. Xo matter what the con- 
sequences, let it come, said the gentleman. Let it come, though 
women and children should be slain, though blood should flow 
like water, though the Union itself be destroyed, though Gov- 
ernment shall be broken up. ISTo matter though five millions 
of the people of the South perish. 

Mr. Adams, (in his seat.) " Five hundred millions, let it 
come." Was this a mental paroxj-sm, or habitual feeling ? 



CALEB CUSUtNG IN BOSTON, 1859. 200 

Senator Henky "Wilson, in Boston, Jan. 21, 1851 : " "We 
sliall arrest the extension of slavery, and rescue the Government 
from the grasp of the slave power. "We shall blot out slavery 
in the National Capitol. "We shall surround the slave States 
■with a cordon of free States. "V\^e shall then appeal to the hearts 
and consciences of men, and, in a few years, notwithstanding 
the immense interests of mankind connected with the cause of 
oppression, we shall give liberty to the millions in bondage. 1 
trust many of us shall live to see the chain stricken from the 
limbs of the last bondman in the Republic ! Bnt, sir, whenever 
that day shall come, living or dead, no man connected with the 
anti-slavery movement will be dearer to enfranchised millions, 
than the name of your guest, A\'iLLiAii Lloyd Gakeison." ' 

CALEB CUSIIING IN BOSTON, 1859. 

'• I showed you how, under the influence of their malign 
teachings, all party action, Xorth and South, was running in the 
channel of a desperate and deplorable sectionalism, and that, 
above all, here in Massachusetts, all the sectional influences 
dominant in this State were fouiided upon the single emotion of 
hate — ay, hate ; treacherous, ferocious hate of our fellow-citizens 
in the Southern States. [Applause, and cries of Good, good.] 

'' Under the influence of this monomania, they have set up 
in this Commonwealth a religion of hate — ay, a religion of hate 
and of blasphemy. O God ! that such things are in this our 
day ! 

" "What more, gentlemen ? "We have had our ears tilled with 
alleged sympathies for John Brown ; of apologies for his act ; 
of reproaches against the persons whom he was endeavoring to 
slaughter in cold blood ; of sneers at the State of Virginia ; of 
ridicule of the terror of the unarmed women and children of 
Virginia. I say, sympatliy for all this. Gentlemen, it is not 
sympathy for John Brown. It is another form of the mani- 
festation of that same intense and ferocious liatred of tlie people 
of the South which animates the persons of whom I am speak- 
ing. [Applause.] Hatred ! Hatred ! Xow the fact has been 
told us, that, in all times, hate must have its food of blood. 
IIow long are the people of Massachusetts to have their souls 



210 THE SECTIONAL COXTEOVERSY. 

continually perverted ^vitli these preachings — ay, pulpit preach- 
in crs of hatred? " 



KELATIO^'S OF THE STATES TO THE GEXEEAL G0YEKN3IENT. 

Senator Davis, of Mississippi, Feb. 2, 1860, in the Senate, 
submitted six resolutions. In th.e^7'st, he speaks of the action 
of tlic States as independent sovereignties in forming the Con- 
i^titution of the United States, by delegating a portion of their 
l)Ower to be exercised by the General Government, In the 
second^ he speaks of negro slavery's being recognized by the 
Constitution. In the ihird, of the equality of the States, in re- 
spect to rights in the Territories. T\xq fourth is as follows : 

" lic'solved, That neither Congress nor a territorial legisla- 
ture, whether by direct legislation, or by legislation of an indi- 
rect and unfriendly nature, possess the power to annul or im- 
pair the constitutional right of any citizen of the United States 
to take his slave property into the common territories ; but it 
is the duty of the Federal Government there to afford for that, 
as for other species of property, the needful protection ; and if 
experience should, at any time, prove that the judiciary does 
not possess power to insure adequate protection, it will become 
the duty of Congress to supply such deficiency." 

In the Jrfth, he declares that when a territory forms its con- 
stitution, the people can then, for the first time, have power to 
say whether slavery, as a domestic institution, shall be main- 
tained or prohibited in its jurisdiction ; and if Congress shall 
admit them as a State, they shall be received into the Union 
either witli or without slavery, as their constitution may pre- 
scribe, at the time of admission. 

In the s/.dli, he speaks of the opposition made by the States 
to the return of fugitive slaves, as hostile in its character, and 
subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in its effect. 

The South insists that what is recognized as property in the 
States, and wdiat is treated as property in the Constitution, and 
in treaties with other nations, and in congressional legislation, 
and in judicial decisions, shall be recognized as property in the 
territories, and protected as property. 

In opposition to this view, the Republican party, in their 



POWER OF CONGRESS OVER TERKITOEIES. 211 

platform, Chicago, 1860, has the followiug dechiration : " Tliat 
the new dogma that the Constitution, of its own force, carries 
slav^ery into anj or all of the territories of the United States, is 
a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit pro- 
visions of that instrument itself, with cotemporaneous exposi- 
tion, and with legislative and judicial precedents, is revolution- 
ary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony 
of the country." 

POWER OF CONGRESS OVER TERRITORIES. 

As heretofore stated, Xorthern men have claimed for Con- 
gress the power to prohibit slavery in the Territories, on the 
strength of that clause in the Constitution which declares that 
" Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful 
rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property 
belonging to the United States ; " and for other reasons. 

Does "territory" here mean land or inhabitants? If 
" public lands " be substituted for " territory," it will then in 
tlie Constitution stand, " public lands " and other property ; 
but if you substitute " colony," that is, inhabitants, it will 
stand, " Congress shall have power to make all needful rules 
concerning the ' colony ' and other property." Where now is 
the power to dispose of the public lands ? See Senator Geyer's 
speech, in 1850. 

It is evident, then, that this clause conferred upon Congress 
no i)olitical power over the " territory " then owned l\v the 
United States, but only power to dispose of it, and make rules 
and regulations about it as " property." 

territory of LOnSIAXA. 

" The inhabitants of the ceded territory sliall "be incorporated 
in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as pos- 
sible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to 
the enjoyment of all the rights, and advantages, and immunities 
of the citizens of the United States, and in the mean time shall 
be maintained ^w^ 'protected in the enjoyment of their liberty, 
Ijwperty^ and the religion they profess." — Treaty vydh France^ 
1803. 



212 THE SECTIONAL CONTIlO^^:EST. 

" At this time slaves were held by the people of Louisiana, 
through tlic ^vhole length of the Mississippi valley. These 
people had an unrestricted right of settlement with their slaves 
under legal protection throughout tlie entire ceded province. 
Here is a treaty promise to protect that property^ that slave 
l)ropcrty in that Territory before it should become a State. 
This promise was violated at the time of the Missouri Compro- 
mise, by Northern votes." Here by treaty the General Govern- 
ment engage to protect slave property. 

In 1820, Mr. Madison wrote : " The questions to be decided 
seem to be, first, whether a territorial restriction be "an assump- 
tion of illegitimate power ; or, second, a misuse of legitimate 
power; and if the latter only, whether the injury 'threatened to 
the nation from an acquiescence in the misuse, or from the frus- 
tration of it, be greater. On the first point, there is certainly 
room for a difference of opinion ; though, for myself, I must 
own that I have always leaned to the belief that the restriction 
was not icithin the true scope of the Constitution. This opinion 
of Mr. Madison, the " Father of the Constitution," is in har- 
mony with the Deed Scott decision. 

In the Republican platform, (I860,) there is the following 
declaration : " That the normal condition of the territory of the 
United States is that of freedom ; that as our republican fathers, 
when they had abolished slavery in our national territory, or- 
dained that no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or 
property, without due j^rocess of law, it becoiries our duty, by 
congressional legislation, Avhenevcr such legislation shall become 
necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against 
all attempts to violate it ; and we deny the authority of Con- 
gress, of a territorial legislature, of any individual or association 
of individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in the United 
States." 

On this declaration. Senator Toombs, of Georgia, remarks : 
" Then you declare that the treaties made by Mr. Jefferson, in 
1803, are null and void, and no law ; then you declare that the 
acts by which property in slaves was protected and allowed, both 
by territorial and congressional acts, in Florida, in Louisiana, in 
Missouri, in Mississippi and Alabama, are all null, void, and no 
law ; you declare that the decision of the Suj^reme Court is 



WHO AVERE TAETIES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT. 213 

null, void, and no law ; tliat there is no Constitution but the 
Chicago platform ; yet you propose to come here and take pos- 
session of this, and swear to maintain the Constitution with this 
reading, and you are quite astonished at our having any objec- 
tions to the peaceable proceedings. '^ * But no matter what 
may be our grievances, the honorable Senator from Kentucky 
says we cannot secede. Well, what can we do ? Submit ? 
They say they are the strongest, and they will hang us. "Well, 
I suppose we must be thankful for that boon. We will take 
that risk. Wc will stand by the right. We will take the Con- 
stitution. We will defend it by the sword, with halter around 
our neck." 



WHO WEEE PARTIES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COilPACT. 

March 8, 1860, in the Senate, Mr. Collamar, of Vermont : 
" I deny, in the first place, that the States, as States, entered into 
this compact. That is rej^eated so often, I do not know but 
it is believed. When a State acts, it acts in its organized ca- 
pacity, by its organs, by its Legislature, or by its Executive. 
There never was one of the States that acted in this way in tlic 
adoption of the present Constitution. The people of the United 
States, meeting in the Conventions in the several States, adopted 
the United States Constitution. The States never acted on it 
as States. It would be a paradox that they should have done 
so. How could the Legislature of JS^orth Carolina, for instance, 
invested as it was, at that time, by the people with the power 
to levy and collect duties upon imports, — how could the State 
in its organized capacity, through that organ, delegate that 
power to another body ? It could not be done. It never was 
done. It never was attempted to be done. The people of the 
United States had to meet in their several States in their origi- 
nal condition, as a people in convention, for these reasons : fii'st. 
it was more convenient ; next, if the people of North Carolina 
had invested their Legislature with the poM'cr to levy and col- 
lect duties, the people of IN'orth Carolina alone Avould have the 
power to invest that in another body, to wit, Congress. If you 
called the whole people of the United States, it would be a dif- 
ferent people — it would be a different set of people to take that 



214 THE SECTIONAL CONTROTEEST. 

power away from tlic one that gave it. Xo, sir, it is not tnic 
that this is in that sense a Confederacy. It is a National Gov- 
erinncnt. Tin's is a clear statement of tlie theory that the States 
Averc not parties to the constitutional compact. But it is not 
supj)orted by facts or comparative weight of authority. 

MK. WEDSTEk's KESOLUTIOXS IX THE SENATE, 1832. 

1. " That the Constitution of the United States is not a 
league, confederacy, or compact, between the people of the 
several States in their sovereign capacities ; but a Government 
proper, founded on the adojjtion of the people, and creating 
direct relations between itself and individuals. 

2. " That no State authority has power to dissolve these re- 
lations ; that nothing can dissolve them but revolution ; and 
that, consequently, there can be no such thing as secession with- 
out revolution. 

3. " That there is a supreme law, consisting of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, acts of Congress passed in pursuance 
of it, and treaties ; and that, in cases not capable of assuming 
the character of a suit at law or equity. Congress must judge 
of, and finally interpret, this supreme law, so often as it has 
occasion to pass acts of legislation ; and in cases assuming the 
character of a suit, the Suj^reme Court of the United States is 
the final interpreter. 

4. "That an attempt by a State to abrogate, annul, or 
nullify an act of Congress, or to arrest its operation within her 
limits, on the ground that, in her opinion, such law is unconsti- 
tutional, is a direct usurpation on the just powers of the Gen- 
eral Government, and on the equal rights of other States, a 
plain violation of the Constitution, and a proceeding essentially 
revolutionary in its character and tendency." 

These resolutions touching nullification, which was under 
consideration, rather than secession, were not adopted by the 
Senate. 

Mr. Madison, on the other hand, tahes a different view of 
the parties to the compact of the Constitution. 

" On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, 



MR. MADISON S VIEWS. 215 

that the Constitution is to be fonnded on the assent and ratifi- 
cation of the people of America, given by deputies elected for 
the special purpose ; but on the other, that this assent and rati- 
fication is given by the people, not as individuals composing 
one entire nation, hut as comijos'mg the distinct and independent 
States to which they Tespectivcly helong. 

" This assent and ratification is to be given by the people, 
not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as compos- 
ing the distinct and. independent States to which they respec- 
tively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the sev- 
eral States, derived from the supreme authority in each State — 
the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, 
establishing the Constitution, will not be a national, but a Fed- 
eral act. 

" That it will be a Federcd and not a national act, as these 
terms are understood by the objectors, the act of the people, as 
forming so many independent States, not as forming an aggre- 
gate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is 
to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people, 
nor from a majority of the States. It nmst result from the 
unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, 
diff'ering no otherwise from their ordinary consent than in its 
being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that 
of the people themselves." 

Mr. Madison also said : An observation fell from a gentle- 
man on the same side as myself, which deserves to be attended 
to. " If we be dissatisfied with the IS'ational Government, if 
we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard 
to our defence." Here Mr. Madison expresses his concurrence 
with the gentleman mentioned, in the declaration, that if the 
State of Virginia is dissatisfied with the General Government 
in its practical workings, she can renounce it. 

In reference to the Federal Government and its powers and 
purposes, in the forty-fifth number of the Federalist, this lan- 
guage is used : 

" The powers delegated to the Federal Government are few 
and defined. Those which arc to remain to the State Govern- 
ment are numerous and indefinite." 

This, then, is the distinction between the two Governments. 



216 THE SECnOXAL controveest. 

The powers granted to the Federal Government are " few and 
defined," those reserved to the States are " numerous and in- 
definite." 

" The former [the Federal Government] will be exercised 
principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and 
foreign commerce ; with which last the power of taxation will 
for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the 
several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordi- 
nary course of affairs, concern the lives, the liberties, and the 
properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, 
and prosperity of the State." 

" I have never beheved that a State could nullify, and re- 
main in the Union ; but I have always believed that a State 
might secede when it pleased, provided she would pay her pro- 
portion of the public debt ; and this right I have considered the 
best guard to public liberty and to public justice that could be 
devised, and it ought to have prevented what is now felt in the 
South — oppression." — ISTathaijiel Macon, of North Carolina, 
Feb. 9, 1833. 

Mr. Macon was regarded as an eminently wise man in the 
Senate of the United States, of which, for a long time, he was 
reirarded as the father. 



OEDINANCE OF SECESSION PASSED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE 
OF GEORGIA, JANUARY 19, 1861. 

"We, the people of the State of Georgia, in convention 
assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and 
ordained, that the ordinance adopted by the people of Georgia 
in convention, in the year 1Y88, whereby the Constitution of 
tlie United States was assented to, ratified and adopted, and 
also acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly ratifying 
and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby 
repealed, rescinded, and abrogated ; and we do further declare 
and ordain, tliat the Union now^ subsisting between the State of 
Georgia and the other States, under the name of the United 
States of America, is hereby dissolved, and that this State is in 
the full possession of those rights of sovereignty which belong 
and appertain to a free and independent State." 



MR. MADISON OX SECESSION. 217 

The people of South Carolina passed the ordinance secession 
Dec. 20, 1860, thus leading the way in .tliat great sectional 
movement. 

MR. MADISON ON SECESSION. 

In a letter written in 1833, Mr. Madison uses the following 
language : " It surely does not follow from the fact that the 
States, or rather the people embodied in them, having, as par- 
ties to the constitutional compact, no tribunal above them, that 
in controverted meanings of the compact a minority of the par- 
ties can rightfully decide against the majority, still less that a 
single party can at will withdraw itself altogether from its com- 
pact with the rest." 

In 1787 he used the following language : '' It has been 
alleged that the confederation, having been formed by unani- 
mous consent, could be dissolved by unanimous consent oidy. 
Does this doctrine result from the nature of compacts ? Docs it 
arise from any particular stipulation on the articles of confed- 
eration ? If we consider the Federal Union as analogous to the 
fundamental compact by which individuals compose our society, 
and Avhich must, in its theoretic origin at least, have been the 
unanimous act of the component members, it cannot be said 
that no dissolution of the compact can be effected without unan- 
imous consent. A breach of the fundartiental ])rinci])les of the 
comjxict hy a imrt of the society ivoulcl certainly absolve the other 
2Mrt from their obligations to itP 

" "Whether a State can or cannot secede, and what others 
may do towards her, or slie towards them — these are questions 
behind the Constitution of the United States, and, if I may say 
so without inconvenience, far above it. These are questions of 
political science and not of constitutional construction ; ques- 
tions upon which empires are often dismembered and dynasties 
overthrown." — Mr. Puon, in the Senate, Dec. 20, 1800. 

" The whole theory of our Government is built upon tlic 
expectation that the States will not secede, but that all will 
continue to be integral parts of the confederacy. If you ask, 
where is authority under the Constitution for a State to secede ? 
I would ask, where is there any thing in the Constitution to 
prevent its secession % " — Senator Pugii, Dec. 20, 1860. 



218 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEESY. 

" It depends on the State itself whether to retain or to 
abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on 
itself whether it will remain a member of the Union. To deny 
this right, would be inconsistent with the principle on which all 
our political systems are founded ; which is, that the people 
have in all cases a right to determine how they will be gov- 
erned. 

" Tlie secession of a State from the Union depends on the 
will of the people of such State. The people alone, as we have 
already seen, have the power to alter the Constitution." — "Wil- 
liam Eaavle, of Pennsylvania, 1825. 

This very able man was offered the office of Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by TTasiiington. 

President Buchanan, in his annual Message, 1860 : 

" In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it 
must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere 
voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by 
any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the confed- 
eracy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the 
first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In 
this manner our thirty -three States may resolve themselves into 
as many petty jarring and hostile republics, each one retiring 
from tlie Union without responsibility, whenever any sudden 
ex'citemeiit might impel them to such a course. By this 
course a Union might be entirely broken up into fragments in a 
few weeks, which cost our fathers many years of toil, privation, 
and blood to establish. 

" It is not pretended that any clause in the Constitution 
gives countenance to such a theory. It is altogether founded 
on inference, not from any language contained in the instru- 
ment itself, but from the sovereign character of the several States 
by which it was ratified. But is it beyond the power of a State, 
like an individual, to yield a portion of its sovereign rights to 
secure the remainder ? In the language of Madison, who has 
been called the father of the Constitution, it was formed by the 
States — that is, by the people in each of the States acting in 
their highest sovereign capacity ; and formed, consequently, by 
the authority which formed the State Constitutions. 

" Nor is the Government of the United States created by the 



THE COERCION OF A STATE BY PHYSICAL FOrX'E. 219 

Constitution less a Government in the strict sense of tlie term 
within the sphere of its powers, than the governments created 
by the Constitutions of the States are within their several 
spheres." The whole argument of President Buchanan in Ids 
annual Message of 1S60, is one of the ablest against secession. 

" I believe that it contravenes no provision of the Constitu- 
tion, for one or more of the States to secede from the Union ; 
not bj virtue of any power conferred upon them by that instru- 
ment, but in consequence of the States never having surrendered 
it to the General Government : the Constitution declares that ' the 
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution 
are reserved to the States respectively, or the people.' I appre- 
hend tliat it will be admitted that the States may exercise any 
or all of their reserved powers without a violation of the Con- 
stitution. If, then, they have never parted with their right to 
resume their original sovereignty, when, in their oj^inion, the 
Government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was 
instituted, it is no violation of the Constitution for them to 
secede. If there is any clause in the Constitution by which 
they deprived themselves of this right, it has escaped my obser- 
vation." — Senator Huntek, of Virginia, Jan. 15, 1861. 

This expresses the Southern view, as President Buchanan in 
his message does the JSTorthern. 

THE COEKCION OF A STATE EY PHYSICAL FOECE. 

On the subject of coercion, Alexander Hamilton said : " It 
has been observed, to coerce the States is one of the saddest pro^ 
jects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never 
be confined to a single State ; this being the case, can we sup- 
pose it wise to hazard a civil war ? Suppose Massachusetts, or 
any larger State should refuse, and Congress should attempt to 
compel them, would they not have influence to procure assist- 
ance, especially from those States that are in the same situation 
as themselves ? "What a picture does this idea present to our 
view ? A complying State at war with a non-complyiug State ; 
Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of 
another ; the State collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, 
a majority against its Federal head. Here is a nation at war 
15 



220 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEEST. 

witli i'tself. Can amj TeasonaMe man he well disjyosed towards 
a Government icldch malces war and carnage the only means of 
supporthuj itself? — a Government tliat can exist only "by the 
sword ? Every sucli war must involve the innocent witli the 
guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose 
every peaceable citizen against such a Government." 

On the same subject, George Masok, of Yirginia, said : " The 
most jarring elements of nature, sin and malice, are not more 
incompatible than such a mixture of civil liberty and military 
execution. "Will the militia march from one State into another, 
in order to collect the arrears of taxes from the delinquent 
members of the Eepublic? "Will they maintain an army for 
this purpose ? "Will not the citizens of the invaded States assist 
one another till they rise and shake off the Union altogether? '-^ 
" ■" To punish the non-payment of taxes with death, is a 
severity not yet adopted by despotism itself ; yet this unexam- 
pled cruelty would be mercy, compared to a military collection 
of revenue, in which the bayonet could make no distinction 
between tlie innocent and the guilty." — See Mr. Madison's 
views on this subject, page 49. 

John Quincy Adams, in his special Message, Feb. 5, 1827, in 
respect to the resistance of Georgia to Federal requisitions, 
said : " In abstaining at this stage of the proceedings from the 
application of any military force, I have been governed by con- 
sidei-ations which will, I trust, meet the concurrence of the Leg- 
islature. Among these, one of prominent importance has been, 
that these surveys have been attempted and partly effected 
under color of legal authority from the State of Georgia ; that 
tlie surveyors are, therefore, not to ho vieived in the light of indi- 
vidual and solitary transgressors, hut as the agents of a sover- 
eign State acting in ohedience to eudhority which they helieved 
to he hinding ujjon them.^'' 

Mr. Madison, on the 8th of June, ITST, said in convention : 
" Any Government for the United States formed on the sup- 
posed practicability of using force against the unconstitutional 
proceedings of the States, would prove as visionary and falla- 
cious as the Government of Congress," evidently meaning the 
then existing Congress of the Confederation. 

Mr. Buchanan in his annual address, ISGO, discusses the 



THE COERCION OF A STATE BY PHYSICAL FORCE. 221 

question, " Has tlio Constitution delegated to Congress the 
power to coerce a State into submission wliicli is attempting to 
withdraw, and has actually withdrawn from the confederacy ? 
If answered in the afiirmative it must be on tlic principle that 
power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to 
make war against a State. After much serious reflection, I 
have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been 
delegated to Congress, or to any other department of the Fed- 
eral Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Con- 
stitution, that this is not among the enumerated powers granted 
to Congress ; and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not 
' necessary and proper for carrying into execution ' any one of 
these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to 
Congress, it was expressly refused by the convention which 
formed the Constitution." See Madisox papers, p. 761. 

" Without descending to particulars, it may be safely 
asserted that the power to make war against a State is at 
variance with the whole spirit and intent of the Constitution. 

" But if we possessed this power would it be wise to exer- 
cise it under existing circumstances ? The object doubtless 
would be to preserve the Union. War would not only present 
the most effectual means of destroying it ; but would banish all 
hope of its peaceable re-construction." " " '"■ 

" The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and 
can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil 
war. If it cannot live in tlie affections of the people, it nmst 
one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving 
it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in its hands to 
destroy it by force." These views he repeats in a special Mes- 
sage on the subject. 

President Buciiaxax, in his special Message, Jan. S, ISGl, 
after denying the right of secession, on the part of the States, 
and the right of coercion on the part of the General Govern- 
ment against seceding States, says : '• But the right and duty to 
use military force defensively against those who resist the Fed- 
eral officers in the execution of their legal functions, and against 
those who spoil tlic power of the Federal Government, is clear 
and undeniable." 

To this Senator Davis, of Mississippi, Jan. 10, 1861, replies : 



222 THE 6ECTI0XAL CONTKOVEEST. 

" Is it SO ? Where does he get it ? Our fathers were so jealous 
of a standing army tliat they would scarcely permit the organ- 
ization and maintenance of any army. Where does he get the 
' clear and undeniable ' power to use the force of the United 
States in the manner he then proposes ? To execute a process, 
troops may be summoned as a posse comitatus ; and here in the 
history of our Government, it is not to be forgotten that in the 
earlier, better days of the Eepublie — and painfully do we feel 
that they were better indeed — a President of the United States 
did not recur to the army ; he went to the peoi3le of the United 
States. Vaguely and confusedly, indeed, did the Senator from 
Tennessee (Andrew Johnson) bring forward the case of the 
great man, Washington, as one, in which he had used a power 
which was equivalent to the coercion of a State, for he said that 
Washington used the military power against a portion of the 
people of a State ; and why might he not have used it against 
the whole State ? 

" Let me tell that Senator that the case of General Washing- 
ton has no application as he supposes. It was a case of insur- 
rection within the State of Pennsylvania ; and the very mes- 
sage from which ho read communicated the fact that Governor 
Mifflin thought it necessary to call the militia of adjoining 
States to co-operate with those of Pennsylvania. He used the 
militia not as a standing army. It was by the consent of the 
Governor; it was by his advice. It was not the invasion of 
the State. It was not the coercion of the State ; but it was 
aiding the State to put down insurrection, and in the very man- 
ner provided in the Constitution itself 

" But, I ask again, what power has the President to use the 
army and navy except to execute process? Are we to have 
drumhead courts substituted for those which the Constitution 
and the laws provide ? Are we to have sergeants sent over the 
land instead of civil magistrates? Kot so thought the elder 
Adams. * " "' I say then, when we trace our history to its 
early foundation under the first two Presidents of the United 
States, we find that this idea of using the army and the navy to 
execute the laws at the discretion of the President, was not even 
entertained, still less acted upon, in any case." 



CAUSES OF THE SECESSIOX OF SOUTH CAKOOXA. 223 

DECLAEATIOX BY THE COXVENTIOX OF SOUTH CAROLINA OF CAUSES 
■WHICH LED TO THE SECESSIOX OF THAT STATE. 

Dec. 24, 1860. 

The people of the State of Soutli Carolina, in Convention 
assembled, on tlie 2d day of April, A. D. 1S52, declared that 
the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States 
by the Federal Government, and its encroachments npon tlie 
reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in their 
withdrawal from the Federal Union ; but in deference to the 
opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she for- 
bore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time these 
encroachments have continued to increase, and further for- 
bearance ceases to be a virtue. 

And now the State of South Carolina, having resumed lier 
separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, 
to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations 
of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes 
which have led to this act. 

Ill the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire em- 
bracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the Govern- 
ment of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colo- 
nies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which 
resulted, on the -ith of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the 
Colonies, " that they are, and of right ought to be, fkee axd 
ESTDEPEXDEXT STATES ; and that, as free and independent States, 
they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract 
alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and 
things which independent States may of right do." 

They further solemnly declared, that whenever any " form 
of Government becomes destructive of the ends for which it 
was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish 
it, and to institute a new Government." Deeming the Govern- 
ment of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, 
they declared that the Colonics " are absolved from all alle- 
giance to the British Crown, and that all political connection 
between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to 
be, totally dissolved." 

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of 



224: THE SECTIOX^U. COXTEOVEEST. 

the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sover- 
eignty ; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers 
for the administration of Government in all its departnients — 
Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. For purposes of defence 
they united their arms and their counsels ; and, in 1778, they 
entered into a League, known as the Articles of Confederation, 
whereby they agreed to intrust the administration of their 
external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress 
of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first article, 
" that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and inde- 
pendence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is 
not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the L^nited 
States in Congress assembled." 

Under this Confederation the War of the Hevolution was 
carried on ; and on the 3d of Sej^tember, 1783, the contest 
ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in 
which she acknowledged the Lidfipendence of the Colonies in 
the following terms : 

" AraiCLE 1. Ilis Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said 
United States, viz. : New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Bhode 
Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, I^ew York, 
Kew Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, 
IS^orth Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be fkee, 
sovEKEiGX, AND ixDErEXDEXT STATES ; that he trcats wi)th them 
as such ; and, for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes 
all claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights 
of the same and every part thereof." 

Thus were established the two great j^rinciples asserted l\y 
the Colonies, namely, the right of a State to govern itself ; and 
the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes 
destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And con- 
current with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, 
that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother 
country as a free, sovekeigx, axd ixdepexdext state. 

In 1787, De2')uties were appointed -by the States to revise 
the articles of Confederation ; and on 17th September, 1787, 
these Deputies recommended, for the adoption of the States, the 
Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the L^nited 
States. 



CAUSES OF THE SECESSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 225 

Tlie parties to whom tins Constitution was submitted, were 
the several sovereign States ; they were to agree or disao-ree, 
and when nine of them agreed, the compact was to take cflect 
among those concurring ; and the General Government, as the 
common agent, was then to be invested Avith their authority. 

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other 
four would have remained as they then were — separate, sov- 
ereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Con- 
stitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the 
Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among 
the other eleven ; and during that interval, they each exercised 
the functions of an independent nation. 

By tliis Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the 
several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers Avas 
restrained, which necessarily impelled their continued existence 
as sovereign States. But, to remove all doubt, an amendment 
was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to 
the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to 
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the 
people. On the 23d May, 1T8S, South Carolina, by a Conven- 
tion of her people, passed an ordinance assenting to this Con- 
stitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution to 
conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken. 

Thus was established, by com]3act between the States, a 
Government with defined objects and powers, limited to the 
express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole 
remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to 
the States or the people, and rendered unnecessary any specifi- 
cation of reserved rights. "We hold that the Government thus 
established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the 
Declaration of Independence ; and we hold further, that the 
mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental prin- 
ciple, namely, the law of compact. We maintain that in every 
compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual ; 
that the failure of one of the contracting parties to j^erfoi'ni i^ 
material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation 
of the other ; and that, where no ai'biter is provided, each party 
is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, 
with all its consequences. 



226 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEEST. 

In the present case, tliat fact is established with certainty. 
"\Ye assert that fourteen of the States liave deliberately refused 
for years past to fulfil their Constitutional obligations, and we 
refer to their own statutes for the proof. 

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, 
provides as follows : 

" No person held to service or labor in one State under the 
laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of 
any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service 
or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to 
■whom such service or labor may be due." 

This stipulation was so material to the compact that without 
it that compact would not have been made. The greater num- 
ber of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had pre- 
viously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation 
by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the Government 
of the territory ceded by Virginia, which obligations, and the 
laws of the General Government, have ceased to effect the 
objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hamp- 
shire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, 
New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wis- 
consin, and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the 
acts of Congress, or render useless any attempt to execute them. 
In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from the 
service of labor claimed, and in none of them has the State 
Government complied with the stipulation made in the Con- 
stitution. Tlie State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a 
law in conformity with her constitutional obligation ; but the 
current of Anti-Slavery feeling has led her more recently to 
enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by 
her own laws and by the laws of Congress. In the State of 
New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied 
by her tribunals ; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused 
to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with 
inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the 
constitutional compact has been deliberately broken and dis- 
regarded by the non-slaveholdiug States ; and the consequence 
follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. 

The ends for which this Constitution was framed are declared 



I 



CAUSES OF THE SECESSION" OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 227 

by itself to be " to form a more perfect Union, to establish 
justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common 
defence, promote tlie general welfare, and secure the blessings 
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." 

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Gov- 
ernment, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and 
had separate control over its own institutions. The right of 
property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons 
distinct political rights ; by giving them the right to represent, 
and burdening: them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their 
slaves ; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty 
years ; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from 
labor. 

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was 
instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has 
been destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding 
States. Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon 
the propriety of our domestic institutions ; and have denied 
the rights of pro]3erty established in fifteen of the States and 
recognized by the Constitution ; they have denounced as sinful 
the institution of slavery ; they have permitted the open estab- 
lishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to 
disturb the peace of and cloin the property of the citizens of 
other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of 
our slaves to leave their homes ; and those who remain have 
been incited by emissaries, books, and pictures, to servile in- 
surrection. 

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily in- 
creasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the 
common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitu- 
tion, a sectional party has found within that article establishing 
the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Con- 
stitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the 
Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the 
election of a man to the high office of President of the United 
States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. lie 
is to be intrusted with the administration of the common Gov- 
ernment, because he has declared that that " Government can- 
not endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the 



228 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course 
of ultimate extinction. 

This sectional combination for the subversion of the Con- 
stitution has been aided, in some of the States, by elevating to 
citizenship persons Avho, by the supreme law of the land, are 
iucapablc of becoming citizens ; and their votes have been used 
to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive 
of its peace and safety. 

On the 4th of March next, this party will take possession 
of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be 
excluded from the common territory, that the Judicial tribunal 
shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against 
slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. 

The guarantees of the Constitution will then no longer exist ; 
the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding 
States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self- 
protection, and the Federal Government will have become their 
enemy. 

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation ; 
and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that the 
public opinion at the North has invested a great political error 
with the sanctions of a more erroneous religious belief. 

We, therefore, the people of South Carolina, by our dele- 
gates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge 
of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly 
declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State 
and the other States of North America is dissolved, and that 
the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among 
the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State, 
with full power to levy war, conclude j)eace, contract alliances, 
establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which 
independent States may of right do." 

After making the above declaration, the Convention of 
South Carolina appointed E. "W. Baknwell, J. H. Adams, and 
Jas. L. Ore, commissioners to proceed to "Washington, as com- 
missioners to treat with the Government of the United States, 
on various subjects connected with the secession of the State. 
This they ineffectually attempted, Dec. 29, 1860, President Bu- 
chakan declinini? to receive them in their official character. 



THE CEITTEXDEX EESOLUTIOXS. 229 

THE PEACE COXGKESS. 

On January 10, ISGl, tlio General Assembly of Virginia 
passed a preamble and resolutions inviting tbe States to send 
commissioners to "Washington to adjust the sectional difficulties 
Avhich threatened the integrity of the Union. These resolutions 
recommended the Ceittexdex resolutions as the basis of set- 
tlement. 

THE CErrTEXDEN" EESOLCTIOXS. 

In order to settle the sectional disputes, Senator Ceittexdex 
brouglit forward a resolution embracing several articles with 
the following preamble : " Whereas serious and alarming dis- 
sensions have arisen between the Northern and Southern States, 
concerning the rights of the slaveholding States, and especially 
their rights in the common territory of the United States, and 
whereas it is eminently desirable and proper that these dissen- 
sions, wliich now threaten the very existence of the Union, 
should be permanently qnieted and settled by constitutional 
j)ro visions which shall do eqnal justice to all sections, and 
thereby restore to the people that peace and good will which 
ought to prevail between all the citizens of the United States • 
therefore, 

" Hesolvcd, hj the Senate and House of iLejyrescntatives of 
the United States, in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of both 
Houses concnrring,) that the following articles bo and licreby 
are proposed and submitted as amendments to the Constitution 
of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and pur- 
poses, as part of said Constitution, when ratified by conventions 
of three-fourths of the several States." 

Article 1 — ^Provided for prohibiting slavery north of 30' 30' 
in all the territory now held or which may hereafter be held, 
and recognizing it as existing in all the territory south of that 
line, and for allowing any territory to come into the Union, 
wlien it has a sufficient population for a member of Congress, 
according to the then ratio of representation of the people of the 
United States, on an equal footing with the other States either 
with or without slavery, as the Constitution of such new State 
shall provide. 



230 TIIE SECTIONAL CONTROVEEST. 

Article 2 — Declares that Congress shall have no power to 
abolish slavery in places iinder the exclusive jurisdiction of 
Congress and within the limits of States that permit the holding 
of slaves. 

Article 3 — Declares that Congress shall not have j^ower to 
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia except on certain 
conditions. 

Article 4 — Declares that Congress shall not interdict the 
transportation of slaves from one State to another where the 
laws permit slavery. 

Article 5 — Declares that the fugitive slave law shall be 
modified in such a manner, that in case the owner meets with 
forcible obstruction from people to the recovery of his slave, the 
United States shall pay for such fugitive slave ; it being pro- 
vided that the county where this force, or intimidation, or 
rescue takes place, shall be liable for the amount paid, with 
authority to remunerate itself by a suit against the rescuers or 
wrong-doers. 

Article G — Provides that these and some other articles 
already in the Constitution shall not be altered hereafter. 

It also contained certain recommendations in respect to the 
personal liberty bills, and the fugitive slave law, and the slave 
trade. 

LETTEKS OF SENATORS BINCrHAM AND CIIANDLEK. 

Washington, Feb. 15, 18G1. 

Dear Sir, 

When Virginia proposed a convention in '\\'ashington, 
in reference to the disturbed condition of the country, I 
regarded it as another step to debauch the public mind, and a 
step towards obtaining that concession which the imperious 
slave power so insolently demands. I have no doubt, at pres- 
ent, that this was tlie design ; I was, therefore, pleased that the 
Legislature of Michigan was not disposed to put herself in a 
position to be controlled by such influences. 

The convention has met here, and within a few days the 
aspect of things is materiall}- changed. Every free State except 
Michigan and Wisconsin is represented, and we have been 
assured by friends upon whom we can relj', that if those two 



LETTEES OF SENATORS BINGHAM A:^D CHANDLEE. 231 

States should send delegations of true unflinching men, there 
would probably be a majority in favor of the Constitution as it 
is, who would frown down rebellion by the enforcement of the 
laws. These friends have recommended the appointment of 
delegates from our State, and in compliance witli their request 
Mr, Chandler and myself telegraphed to you last night. It 
cannot be doubted that the recommendations of this convention 
will have considerable influence upon the public mind and 
upon the action of Congress. "'^ * * 

I have the honor with much respect, to be truly yours, 

Iv. S. BmGHAJM. 
His Excellency, Governor Blair. 

Washixgtox, Feh. 11, 1861. 

My dear Go'S'eenor, 

Governor Bingham and myself telegraphed to you on 
Saturday at the request of Massachusetts and Kew York, to 
send delegates to the peace or compromise congress. They 
admit that we were right and they were wrong ; that no 
Eepublican State should have sent delegates ; but they are 
here and cannot get away. Ohio, Indiana, and Rhode Island 
are caving in, and there is danger of Illinois /''and now they 
beg us, for God's sake, to come to their rescue, and save the 
republican party from rupture. I hope you will send stiff- 
hacked men or none. The whole thing was got up against my 
judgment, and will end in thin smoke. Still I hope as a mat- 
ter of courtesy to some of our erring brethren, that you will 
send the delegates. 

Truly your friend, 

Z. Chandler. 

His Excellency ArsTix Blair. 

P. S. — Some of the manufacturing States think that a fight 
would be awful. Without a little blood-letting, this Union will 
not, in my estimation, be worth a rush. 

The peace Congress was a failure. The South, goaded on by 
wrongs real, and -wi'ongs imaginary, was rushing into secession. 
The jS'orth called for " blood-letting." Blood was forthcoming. 



232 TECE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEESY. 



KEMAKKS. 



1. Causes were in operation when Mr. Buchanan entered 
upon Ills administration, and during its continuance, Avhicli 
raised the sectional feeling, botli North and South, to such a 
degree of antagonism, that the Union of the States was ruptured 
by the secession of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Missis- 
sippi, Louisiana, and Florida. What those causes were, both 
proximate and remote, may be seen or inferred from the facts 
stated in the preceding pages. The sectional character at- 
tributed to the Republican party ; the opposition to the Deed 
ScoTT decision ; the recommendation by sixty-eight Northern 
members of Congress of Helper's incendiary abolition book ; 
the John Brown invasio]i, and the sympathy expressed for him 
by Northern communities ; the personal liberty bills passed 
by the Legislatures of at least twelve Northern States ; the 
declaration of the Northern dominant party, that there should 
be no more slave territory ; the spirit with which that party 
was coming into power, the exclamation of the victorious 
Gauls, addressed to the conquered Romans, tw victis, being 
in their hearts, if not on their lips ; — these were some of the 
proximate causes of the secession. The sceptre was departing 
from Judah, and the lawgiver from between his feet. For 
fourteen presidential terms the candidate, favored by the South, 
had been elected ; while the favorite candidates of the North 
had been elected for only four presidential terms. And with 
respect to these four, who were the favorite candidates of the 
North, namely, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, General 
Haerison, and General Tayloe, there was no great dissatisfaction 
at the South, Tlie two latter were by birth Southern men, and 
in favor of protecting Southern institutions. But now, for the 
first time, an anti-slavery man, Mr. Lincoln, was elected presi- 
dent upon an anti-slavery platform, with the expectation on the 
part of the electors that anti-slavery men would " take possession 
of the Government," and would control the councils of the 
nation. Moreover, the Northern triumphant party, as be- 
longing to the most numerous section, expected to hold the 
Government in perpetuity, so that all that was left to the South 



KEilAKKS. 233 

was to exclaim with the fallen statesman "Wolsey, " Farewell, 
a long farewell to all my greatness ! " 

But the K^orth might justly, in turn, complain against the 
South, on account of grievances which, to some extent, furnish 
an apology for the injuries just mentioned. It might justly com- 
plain tliiit it had hecn, for a long time, practically excluded from 
its appropriate share of influence, and office, and emolument, 
in the administration of the Federal Government. It might 
say. Yon of the South have had possession of the Federal Gov- 
ernment, with all its attendant advantages, for fifty-six years 
out of seventy-two ; and when you have refused to admit us to 
an equal participation in these advantages, and when you 
have foiled us again and again, in our attempts to gain the 
presidential election, you must not think it strange that we 
should, in our desperate efforts to obtain our rights, have used 
means that would be unpardonable in other circumstances. 
You must not think it strange, if you deprive ns of our ap- 
l^ropriate share of political power, that we, in retaliation, 
should deprive you of your appropriate share in the territories. 
You must not think it strange that, if the slave States go in ;i 
solid column against our presidential candidates, we should 
oppose the admission of new slave States. You must not think 
it strange that, if you attempt to nullify Tariff laws, which 
protect om' manufacturing property, we should, by our personal 
liberty bills, nullify your fugitive slave law, which protects 
your slave property. You must not think it strange that, if 
you attack our commercial interests, as you did during the 
administration of Mr. Jeffeeson and of Mr. Madison ; and our 
manufacturing interests, as you did during the administration 
of General Jackson and of Mr. Polk ; we should attack your 
interests in slaves. You must not think it strange, if you 
magnify the reserved rights of the States and threaten 
secession, that we should magnify the powers granted to the 
Federal Government, and threaten military coercion. 

2. In the progress of years, a thorough alienation of feeling 
had grown up between large masses at the iN^orth, and large 
masses at the South. Men hate those whom they injure as 
well as those who injure them. In the Korth there was the 
feelmg of contempt mingled with the hatred, namely contempt 



234 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEKSY. 

for the supposed imbecility and poverty of the South, and its 
dependence on tlie North for conveniences and necessaries of 
life manufactured at the !North. There was also a deep moral 
abhorrence of Southern men as slaveholders, inasmuch as 
slavery was supposed to include in it " the sum of all villanies." 
The supposed " barbarism of the South " furnished the staple 
for speeches, and newspaper articles, and local conversation. 
There were those, and not a few, who felt that those Southern 
barbarians were not any better entitled to equal rights in the 
teiTitories, according to the guarantees of the Constitution, 
than were the children of Ishmacl to the promises made 
exclusively to the seed of Isaac, or than were the descendants 
of Esau to a share with the children of Israel in the territories 
of the Promised Land. In short, they felt that, as " Saints," 
Northern men should " inherit the North " ; that they should 
take possession of the common territories by a direct grant 
from Congress, overriding the Constitution ; and that, in due 
time, under a patent from the Almighty, they should take pos- 
session of the Southern States, as fast as they could expel the 
Canaanites from the land. 

And, on the other hand, Southern men i-epaid, if possible, 
this Northern hatred with interest ; for their hatred was inten- 
sified by the fear of those who politically had power to injure 
them. Tliey distrusted men who claimed to have large powers 
from the Constitution to injure the South, while in cases in 
which the Constitution expressly protects the interests of the 
South, they would place themselves under the subterfuge of a 
" higher law," in order to violate their constitutional obliga- 
tions. They feared and distrusted men who would thus act 
under the Constitution with their own construction of it, or the 
higher law with their own construction of it, according as the 
one or the other would help to enlarge the rights of the North, 
and lessen the rights of the South. They distrusted, and feared, 
and hated men, who, under a pretence of the right of petition, 
and of the freedom of the press, and liberty of speech, would 
deluge the floor of Congress with insults and slanders, and fill 
the mail bags with incendiary publications ; and send insurrec- 
tionary apostles of abolitionism, to kindle the flames of rebel- 
lion in the South. They distrusted, and feared, and hated men, 



REMAKES. 235 

sixty-eight of whose representatives had recommended a book, 
written to injure Southern institutions protected I)}'' the Con- 
stitution — men who sympathized witli a convict, and crowned 
him with sepulchral honors, because he hated slavery ; who, 
thirty years ago, would have been " hung like a felon, and 
buried like a dog." They distrusted, and feared, and hated 
men, who ostracized and excluded from office some of the 
ablest and best men in the Northern States, and put abo- 
litionists in their place, simply upon the suspicion that the 
former were national and not sectional in their politics ; who 
had let loose their war dogs to pursue their great man, Daniel 
Webstee, even into his grave ; and who, for a season, instead 
of allowing ministers of the Gospel to preach Christ and him 
crucified, demanded that they " should preach Douglas and 
him damned " ; all because they suspected these two men of 
favoring the South, They distrusted, and feared, and hated 
men, who could aid in passing personal liberty bills, which 
violate and nullify the Constitution in one of its clauses, and 
who can vilify and set at nought the decision of the Supreme 
Court of the United States, which many of them had never 
even read. 

Senator Ivekson of Georgia, Dec. 6, 1860, in the Senate, 
made the following remarks : " Sir, disguise the fact as you 
will, there is an enmity between the jSTorthern and the South- 
ern people that is deep, and you can never eradicate it — never. 
Look at the spectacle exhibited on this floor. How is it ? 
There are the Republican Northern Senators on that side. 
Here are the Southern Senators on this side. How much social 
intercourse between us ? You sit on that side, sullen and 
gloomy ; we sit on ours with portentous scowls. Yesterday 
I observed there was not a solitary man on that side of the 
chamber came over here, even to extend the civilities and 
courtesies of life ; nor did any of us go over there. Here are 
two hostile bodies, on this floor, and it is but a type of the 
feeling that exists in the two sections. We are enemies as 
much as if we were hostile States. I believe the Northern 
people hate the South worse than ever the English people hated 
France ; and I can tell my brethren over there, that there is 

no love lost on the part of the South. 
16 



230 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEKST. 

" In this state of feeling, divided as Tve are by interest, by 
geographical position, by every thing that makes two people 
separate and distinct — I ask, why should we remain in the 
same Union together ? We have not lived in peace ; we are 
not now living in peace. It is not to be expected, or hoped, 
that we ever shall live in peace. My doctrine is, that whenever 
man and wife find that they nmst quarrel and cannot live in 
peace, they ought to separate ; and these two sections, the 
^N^orth and the South, manifesting, as they have done and. do 
now, and probably ever will manifest, feelings of hostility, 
sejjarated as they are in interests and objects — my own opinion 
is, that they can never live in peace ; and the sooner they sepa- 
rate the better." 

3. Does the Northern dominant party desire the extinction 
of slavery in the Southern States, and does it propose to adopt 
only political means to promote that extinction ? Senator 
Sewaed, in liis speech in Ohio, said : " Slavery can be limited 
to its present bounds. It can be ameliorated. It can and 
must be abolished, and you and I can and must do it." Mr. 
Douglas said of this : " Every appeal they make to Northern 
prejudice is against the institution of slavery everywhere, and 
they would not be able to retain their abolition allies, the rank 
out-and-out abolitionists, unless they held out the liojic that 
it was tlie mission of the Republican party, if successful, to 
abolish slavery in the States as well as territories of the Union." 
Tliey, the people of Ohio, and he, a New Yorker, must abolish 
slavery in Virginia. 

Mr. Joshua R. GroniNGs said of the Helper book : " Every 
sentence of the book finds a response in the hearts of all true 
Republicans." 

Senator Sumnek said, that " slaveholders are base, false, 
and heedless of justice. It is vain to expect that men, who 
had screwed themselves up to become the propagandists of 
this enormity, will be restrained by any compromise, compact, 
bargain, or plighted faith. As the less is contained in the 
greater, so there is no vileness of dishonesty, no denial of 
human rights, that is not plainly involved in the support of 
an institution, which begins by changing men, created in the 
image of God, into a chattel, and sweeps little children away to 



EEMAEKS. 237 

the auction block." How strangely is tills in contrast to tlic 
language of anotlier Massaclinsetts Senator ! 

In 1S35, at a meeting in Faneuil Hall, Hakuison Gkey Otis, 
in reference to anti-slavery associations, said " that almost all 
the epithets of vituperation which the language affords, have 
been applied to slaveholders and their principles — to the 
principles of Washington, and Jeffersox, and Madison, and 
the RuTLEDGEs, and the Pinckneys ; and the thousands of other 
gi'eat and estimable persons who have held, or M'ho yet hohl 
slaves." He pointed to the portraits of Hancock and Wash- 
ington, which hung in the Hall, and said : 

" Let us imagine an interview between them, in the com- 
pany of friends, just after one had signed the commission of 
the other ; and, in ruminating on the lights and shadows of 
futurity, Hancock should have said : I congratulate my country 
on the choice she has made, and I foresee, that the laurels you 
gained in the field of Braddock's defeat, will be twined witli 
those which will be earned by you in the war of Independence ; 
yet, such are the prejudices in my part of the Union against 
slavery, that although your name and services may secure you 
from apprehension during your life, yet your countrymen, when 
the willows weep over your tomb, will be branded by mine 
as man-stealers and murderers; and the stain consequently 
annexed to your memory ! Would not such a prophecy have 
been imputed to a brain disturbed, and its accomplishment 
regarded as a chimera ? " 

And yet such a prophecy has been verified to a wide extent, 
not only in Massachusetts, but in the ^N'orth generally. Much 
that is uttered in conversation, in political speeches, in sermons, 
and in public prayers, can he accounted for only on the suppo- 
sition that there are large classes of men who desire the 
abolition of slavery in the States, as well as its exclusion from 
the territories, and that, if they had the political power, they 
would not scruple to use it for the attainment of both of those 
objects, whatever should be the consequences to the South. 

4. Southern 2)rejudices.— As early as 1671, these prejudices 
existed. At that time, Sir William Berio^ey, Governor of 
Virginia, stated " that the Navigation Act cutting off" all trade 
with foreign countries was very injurious to them, (the Vir- 



238 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEKSY. 

ginians,) as tliey yvere obedient to the laws. And this is the 
cause why no great or small vessels are built here, for we are 
obedient to the laws, while the jS'ew England men trade to 
every place that their interests lead them." 

Mr. J. Taylok, in the Convention assembled to ratify the 
Constitution in North Carolina, said : " "We plainly see that 
men that come from New England are different from us ; they 
are ignorant of our situation ; they do not know the state of 
our country. They cannot legislate for us." • 

Many Southern statesmen have been under the impression, 
that the Northern States have very little reverence for the Con- 
stitution, and that they would be very ready to enlarge or 
diminish its powers, if, by so doing, they could advance their 
own material interests, and their own political power ; that 
:under the pretence of advancing the " general welfare," they 
would sacrifice the vested rights of the South ; that under the 
pretence of promoting " the greatest good of the greatest num- 
ber," they would violate sacred compacts ; that from their greed 
of money and their greed of political power, they are ready to 
sacrifice lienor and duty to self-interest, and that they love 
negroes only because they hate their masters. 

5. "Was the new Confederacy or Union expected to be per- 
manent ? The Union of the Old England Colonies established 
in 1G43, though solemnly declared in the Constitution to be 
" perpetual," was dissolved. The Union, under the British 
Constitution, of the Colonies with the mother country, which 
was supposed to be organic, and claimed to be perjietual, was 
dissolved. The Union formed by the Federal Constitution, or 
" Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union," and which 
was in that instrument solemnly declared to be perpetual, was 
dissolved. 

"Was the new Union, like those three Unions, expected to 
be dissolved and pass away ? 

The States were familiar with the idea, that " Governments 
derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," and 
that " when any form of Government becomes destructive of 
the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the 
people to alter or to abolish it, and institute a new Government." 
By an article in the new Constitution, " the ratification of the 



EEMAEK3. 239 

Convention of nine States shall be sufficient for the estab- 
lishment of this Constitution hctween the States ratifying the 
same ; " thus justifying the doctrine, that nine States might 
secede from the remaining four, notwithstanding the article in 
the old Constitution, namely, " And the Articles of this Con- 
federation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the 
Union shall be perpetual ; nor shall any alteration at any time 
hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be 
agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards 
confirmed by the Legislatures of every State." 

In the new Constitution there is no declaration that the 
Union shall be perpetual, no promise on the part of the States 
to abide in it, and no power delegated to the Federal Govern- 
ment to retain them in it by force. Will they stay in it ? 

Many of the fathers had their fears and misgivings. Even 
Washixgtox hardly dared to look into the future. " Let ex- 
perience," said he, " solve the question. To look to speculation 
in such a case were criminal." He evidently feared to reason 
on the subject, lest he should be carried to the conclusion, 
that the L^nion could not be preserved, however much he 
loved it. 

John' Adams expected the dissolution of the L^nion. "Tlio 
Kev. Mr. Coffin of ISTew England, who is now here soliciting 
donations for a College in Greene County, Tennessee, tells me 
that when he first determined to engage in this enterprise, he 
wrote a letter recommendatory of the enterprise, which he 
meant to get signed by clergymen, and a similar one for per- 
sons of a civil character, at the head of which he wished to 
have Mr. Adams to put his name, he being the President of 
the United States, and the application going only for his name, 
and not for a donation. Mr. Adams, after reading the paper, 
and considering, said he saw no possibility of continuing the 
Union of the States ; that their dissolution must necessarily 
take place ; that he therefore saw no propriety in recommend- 
ing to ISTew England men to promote an institution in the 
South ; that it was, in fact, giving strength to those who were 
to be their enemies, and therefore he would have nothing to do 
with it." — ^Jeffeeson's Works, Dec. 13, 1803. 

Li the following letter to Mr. Holmes, of Maine, April 22, 



240 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVERSY. 

1820, Mr. Jefferson makes known his own views : " I thank 
you, dear sir, for the copy you were so kind as to send me of 
the letter to your constituents, on the Missouri question. It is 
a perfect justification to them. I had, for a long time, ceased 
to read the newspapers, or jjay any attention to public affairs, 
confident that they were in good hands, and content to be a 
passenger in our boat to the shore from which I am not far 
distant. But this momentous question, like a fire-bell in the 
night, awakened and filled nic with terror. I considered it at 
once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the 
moment, but this is a repriev'e only, not a final sentence. A 
(jeograpliical line coinciding with a marked ])rinciple^ moral 
and 'political^ and conceived and held tip hy the angry passions 
of men^ will never he oMiterated, and every new irritation will 
make it deeper and deeper. '^ * I regret, now, to die in the 
belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation 
of 1770, to acquire self-government and hapj)iness to their 
country, is to be thrown away by the unwise passions of their 
sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I do not live 
to weep over it." 

Many patriotic statesmen, like Washington, and Adams, and 
Jefferson, have looked with fear and trembling into the future 
condition of these States. They were apprehensive that the 
original thirteen States were too extensive for one Government. 
AVliat would they have said of the magnitude of the thirty-four 
States united in one Confederacy ? Suis et ipsa Roma virihus 
niit. 

But there are other considerations on this subject that have 
attracted the attention of another class of men. Coleridge, in 
his Tahle Talk^ 1833, p. 201, says : " Can there be any thor- 
ough national fusion of the Xorthcrn and the Southern States ? 
I think not. The fact is, the Union will be shaken almost 
to dislocation, whenever a very serious question between the 
States arises. The American Union has no centre, and it is 
impossible to make one. The more they e:^tend their borders 
into the Indian land, the weaker will the national cohesion be. 
I look upon the States as splendid masses to be used by-and-by 
in the composition of two or three Governments." 

A Russian writer, Iv^vn Golovin, remarked in 1856 : " A 



EEMAEKS. 241 

A^sit to the United States has the strange property of cooling 
democrats. Again, I tell you, the manifest destiny of the 
States is disunion. I do not give the Union eight years 
to last." 

ALEXi\Js'DER Hamilton speaks of the new Constitution, when 
it was before the country for adoption, in the following terms : 

" If the Government be adoj^ted, it is probable General 
"Washington will be the President of the United States. Tiiis 
will insure a wise choice of men to administer the Government, 
and a good administration. A good administration will con- 
ciliate the confidence and aflections of the people, and perhaps 
enable the Government to acquire more consistency than the 
proposed Constitution seems to promise for so great a country. 
It may thus triumph altogether over the State Governments, and 
7'educe them to an entire subordination, dividing the larger 
States into smaller districts. The organs of the General Gov- 
ernment may also acquire additional strength. 

" If this should not be the case, in the course of a few years, 
it is probable that the contests about the boundaries of power 
between the particular Governments and the General Gov- 
ernment and the momentum of the larger States, vnll produce 
a dissolution of the Union. This, after cdl, seems to he the 
most likely result.''^ 

Benjamin Hakrison, father of President IIaekison, in a 
letter to Gen. Washington, 1T87, says : " I cannot divest myself 
of the opinion, that the seeds of civil discord are plentifully 
sown in very many of the powers, given both to the President 
and the Congress ; and if the Constitution is carried into effect, 
the States south of the Potomac will be little more than ap- 
pendages to those northward." 

In the progress of time the seeds of civil discord germinated. 
Causes became apparent that threatened the dissolution of the 
Union. 

Washington, in his letter to Alexander Hamilton, July 
27, 1792, says : " On my way home, and since my arrival here, 
I have endeavored to learn from sensible, moderate men, known 
friends of the Government, the sentiments that are entertained 
of public measures. These all agree that the country is pros- 
perous and happy, but they seem to be alarmed at that system 



242 THE SECTIONAL CONTROYEKST. 

of policy, and tliose interpretations of tlic Constitution, -whicli 
liave taken place in Congress." These interjiretations tended 
to enlarge the powers of the General Government, as was sup- 
posed, at the expense of State rights. 

There were men all along, from the days of AVasuingtox to 
the present time, who understood the danger of disunion, and 
endeavored to avoid the causes that would produce it. They 
were prescient of the future, and saw events in their causes. 

In 1849, Robert E. Schenck, member from Dayton, Ohio, 
said : " If we of the Northern States will not vote for a South- 
ern man, merely because he is a Southern man, and men of the 
South will not vote for a Northern man, merely because he is 
a Northern man, and if that principle is to be carried out in all 
our national politics and elections, what must be the result ? 
Disunion. Tuat itself is disunion. You may disguise and 
cover it up as you please, but that it will be. It may be re- 
garded as but the iirst step in disunion, but its consequences 
follow as inevitably as fate. One section — the Xorth or the 
South — must always have the majority. Disfranchise all upon 
the other side, and the Union could not hold together a day ; It 
oufjld not to hold together iipoii such conditions a day.'''' 

On the other hand, from the first, there were those who 
never indulged any fears of secession and disunion. They were, 
indeed, inclined to ridicule the fears of others as entirely ground- 
less, in words like these : " The Southern States cannot be 
kicked out of the Union, and if they were inclined to go out, 
the Korth would not let them go. All the threats and all the 
fears of disunion are as wild as the visions of Southern fanatics 
and the dreams of Northern Union-savers. Tliey are all got up 
for political effect, and to carry on elections by frightening 
weak-minded Union-savers." 

6. Meaning of certain Terms. — States. Tlie word State, 
says Mr. Madison, sometimes means territory occu])ied by a 
political society ; sometimes the Government established by 
that society ; sometimes the j)^'>P^^ composing that society in 
their highest sovereign capacity. It is used in this last sense 
when it is said that the State, or States, ratified the Constitu- 
tion or acceded to the Constitution. The people ratified the 



EEMARKS. 243 

Constitution as the act of the State. Thus each State, acting 
by itself, and for itself, in Convention, became a party to the 
constitutional compact. It should be added, that the term 
State replaced the term colony, which Avas in use before the 
Declaration of Independence. 

The States made the Declaration of Independence, each 
State acting for itself, and each State becoming " free and inde- 
pendent." The States formed the articles of Confederation, 
each State still retaining its sovereignty as to all that was not 
delegated. The States formed the present Constitution. " The 
Convention which formed it, was called by a portion of the 
States ; its members were all appointed by the States ; received 
their authority from the separate States ; voted by States in 
forming the Constitution, transmitted it to Congress to be sub- 
mitted to the States for their ratification ; it was ratified by the 
people of each State in Convention, each ratifying by itself and 
for itself, and bound exclusively by its own ratification ; and by 
express provision it was not to go into operation unless nine 
out of twelve States should ratify, and then binding only be- 
tween the States ratifying. Any four States, great or small, 
could have defeated its adoption." 

KoGER Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, in their letter to 
Governor Huntixgtox, say : ''■ AVe wish it, the Constitution, may 
meet with the approbation of the several States, and be a means 
of securing their rights, and lengthening out their tranquillity." 

The States retained their sovereignty for the reason that it 
was not delegated to the Constitution. In the case of the Bank 
of Augusta vs. Earle, 13 Peters' Reports, p. 590, it was decided 
by the Supreme Court that the " rules of international law 
apply to the States inter se, and the Chief Justice declared that 
they are sovereign States. The Constitution was a Federal 
compact, done in Convention, b}' the unanimous consent of the 
States present." 

Judge Chase, of the Superior Court of the United States, in 
Dallas' Reports, p. 199, says : " I consider the Declaration of 
Independence as a declaration, not that the United Colonies 
jointl}', in a collective capacity, were independent States, but 
that each of them was an hidepejident StateT It asserts the 
separate and individual independence, freedom, and sovereignty 



2i-i THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEKSY. 

of eacli of the thirteen Stcates. The treaty with Great Britain 
recognizes the sovereignty of each State by name. 

United States. — This term replaced the term " United 
Colonies," on the Declaration of Independence. The use of 
the term United Colonies did not annul the separate distinc- 
tive rights of the Colonies. The use of the term United States 
does not annul the separate distinctive rights of the States, 
whether before the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, 
or after the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, or after 
the adoption of the Federal Constitution. The word " United," 
used in these four different sets of circumstances, does not 
imply that the Colonies or the States were one people, in the 
sense in which a colony or a State is one, but only that the 
several Colonies before the Declaration of Independence, and 
the several States before the adoption of the Articles of Con- 
federation, and after their adoption, and after the adoption of 
the Constitution, united for certain 'purposes and hi certain 
respects. 

In the minds of the framers and friends of the Constitution, 
the plural idea was the ruling idea in the use of the term 
" United States." The term was equivalent to the " States of 
the Union." Thus General Washington, in his reply to Corn- 
planter : " The United States desire to be the friends of the 
Indians." "The United States will be true and faithful to 
tJieir engagements." 

But in the miuds of foreigners, and those ignorant of the 
structure of our Government, the singular idea is attached to 
the term. They sometimes say, '' the United States is able to 
take care of itself." 

In the Convention of Virginia, which ratified the Constitu- 
tion, Patrick IIenrt objected to the words, " We, the people 
of the United States," lest it might be su])posed that it meant 
the inhabitants of all the States as one homogeneous mass or 
aggregate. But Mr. Madison replied, " The j)arties to it are to 
be the people, but not the people as composing one great society^ 
but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.'' The acces- 
sion or adoption was the separate act of the people of «ach 
State, quite independent of the people of any other State. And 



the articles at the end arc declared to be " done in Convention 
Ly the unanimous consent of the States present." 

Peoplt2. — This term was used in application to the indi- 
viduals who composed a separate Colony or a separate State. 
" The good people of these Colonies," meant the good peoj^le in 
the several Colonies. It meant those for whom the deleo-ates 
severally acted, and it did not mean those people in the a2:gre- 
gate. The several peoples represented in the Convention acted 
by their respective delegates. Thus, the people of Connecticut 
acted for themselves by their delegates Eogee Suekmax, Saji- 
UEL HuxTixGTox, 'Willia:^ ^\'"illia3is, Olr-er AVolcott. In 
the Articles of Confederation, the following phrases are em- 
ployed : " among the people of the diilerent States " ; " and 
the people of each State " ; " their own people," that is, the 
people of the respective States. In the Constitution the word 
" people " is used only for reference to the inhabitants of the 
several States, or portions of the same, and in no case for the 
collective inhabitants of all the States in the aggregate. It is 
applied to those who were accustomed to act together under 
State authority, at a particular time or place, or to portions of 
them. Thus, '• The powers not delegated to the United States 
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are re- 
served to the States or to the people," (that is, to the people of 
the States.) In the phrase, " We, the people of the United 
States," there is an equivalent for Ave, the people of ]^ew 
Hampshire, and the people of Massachusetts, tfee. Tlie articles 
of the Constitution was a compact " hetween the States ratify- 
ing the same." The '' style " of the Federal Union in the new 
Constitution was borrowed from the old, namely, the Articles 
of Confederation, and has the same meaning. 

The reason why the Constitution was submitted to the 
people of each State, and not to the several Legislatures, was 
because it was apprehended that the latter would oppose it. 
Said Wilson : " I know that they, the Legislatures and the 
State officers, will oppose it ; I am for carrying it to tlie people 
of each State." The ratification was the act of each State, and 
not of the Federal Government, which then had no existence, 
or of the aggregate people under that Government. 



24:6 THE SECnOXAL CONTKOVERSY. 

Massachusetts, in Convention, in ratifying the " new Constitu- 
tion," speaks of the " riglits of the people," that is, the people 
of the several States ; and also uses the language, '" in the name 
and by the authority of the people of this Commonwealth." 
'• Tlic freedom of the people," was understood to mean the free- 
dom or the rights of the States, or of the people of the States, 
in distinction from tlie granted rights or powers of the Federal 
Government. 

Constitution. — The people in the Colonies were under the 
Beitisii Constitution. 

A Constitution was framed in 1G43 hy the colonies of 
Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven. It 
was composed of twelve articles. Tlie first fixes the name, 
'' The United Colonies of New England." Second : " The said 
United Colonies, for themselves and their posterity, do jointly 
and severally enter into a firm and ^;^?'^c'^'W«^ league of fiicnd- 
ship and amity, for offence and defence, mutual advice and 
succor upon all just occasions, for their mutual safety and 
general welfare." 

Besides State Constitutions, the peojDle of the Colonics, 
when they became " free and independent States," through 
their Legislatures formed a Constitution under which they 
could act for specific purposes set forth in that instrument. 
Tliis was familiarly known as " the Articles of Confedera- 
tion," though it was also denominated the " Federal Con- 
stitution," in popular language, in the acts of the States, 
and in the Convention assembled to revise it. Thus, Mas- 
sachusetts, in the appointment of delegates to the Conven- 
tion which formed the " new Constitution," uses the term 
"'Federal Constitution" as equivalent to "the Articles of 
Confederation." 

It was solemnly ratified by all the Legislatures, and declared 
to be of perpetual obligation. " And the Articles of this Con- 
federation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the 
Union shall he 2)erpetual. Nor. shall any alteration, at any 
time hereafter, be made in any of them, unless such altera- 
tion be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be 
afterwards confirmed by the Legislature of every State." 



EEMAKKS. 24:7 

It is not strange that Luther Maetin should express the 
following reprobation of t\ie violation of federal obligation by 
forming a new Constitution in 1787 : " "Will yon toll ns that 
Ave onglit to trust you because you now enter into a solemn 
compact with us ? This you have done hefore^ and noio treat 
with the utmost contemjDt. Will you now make an appeal to 
the Supreme Being, and call on Him to guarantee your ob- 
servance of this compact ? The same you have formerly done 
for your observance of the Articles of Confederation, which 
you are now violating in the most wanton manner. The same 
reason which you now urge for destroying our present Federal 
Government, may be urged for abolishing the system, which 
you now propose to adopt." 

It should be kept in mind, that sectional views of the Con- 
stitution had an influence in producing a sectional ]3olicy in the 
administration of the Government. The South, from the start, 
favored a strict construction of the Constitution. The leadinfir 
statesmen of that section, from Thomas Jefferson to Jefferson 
Davis, generally inquired for the " enumerated powers," and 
the " delegated powers " contained in the Constitution, and 
insisted that federal action must be carefully limited by these 
l)owers. And if, in any case, the action of the Federal Govern- 
ment, in any of its branches, should go outside of these " granted 
powers," to usurp the j)Owers reserved to the States, it is then 
null and void, because unconstitutional. 

On the other hand, the Xortli has been inclined to a broad 
construction of the Constitution. The leading statesmen of 
that section, from Alexander Hamilton to Daniel "Webster, 
generally were disposed to magnify the " granted powers," 
though at the expense of the powers reserved to the States. ' 

To these general statements there are many exceptions, both 
in the ]Srorth and the South. 

Is a national bank constitutional ? Tlie Southern statesman 
examines the Constitution, and finding no grant of j^ower to 
Congress to establish such a bank, therefore pronounces the 
establishment of a bank unconstitutional. A Northern states- 
man, OH the other hand, while he acknowledges that the Con- 
stitution contains no express grant of power to Congress to 
establish a bank or any corporation, says that, inasmuch as a 



24S THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

bank would be convenient or aj)pi*opriate for carrying into 
operation other grunts of power, it is therefore constitutionah 

Are internal improvements constitutional 'i On the same 
grounds as in the other case, the Southern statesman says no, 
the Northern yes. 

Are high tariffs for protection constitutional ? On tlie same 
ground as before the Southern statesmen say no, inasmuch as 
the Constitution empowers Congress to lay duties for revenue, 
but not for protection or jjrohibition. The l^orthern statesmen 
say yes ; because, as they judge, they are " necessary " in 
order to promote the " general welfare," or at least the welfare 
of tlieir section of the country. 

[Mr. Jefferson to Mr, Giles,] 

" MoNTiCELLO, Dec. 25, 1S25. 

" I see as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid 
strides with which the federal brancli of our Government is 
advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to 
the States, and the consolidation in itself of all power, foreign 
and domestic ; and that, too, by constructions which, if legiti- 
mate, leave no limits to their power. Take together tlie de- 
cisions of the Federal Courts, the doctrines of the President, 
(J. Q. Adams,) and the misconstructions of the constitutional 
compact acted on by the legislation of the federal branch, and 
it is but too evident that the three ruling branches of this de- 
partment, are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State 
authorities, of the powers reserved to them ; and to exercise 
themselves all functions, foreign and domestic. * * And 
M'liat is our resource for the preservation of the Constitution ? 
Reason and argument ? You might as well reason and argue 
with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives 
chosen by ourselves ? They are found in the combination, some 
from incorrect views of government, some from corruj^t ones, 
sufficient, voting together, to outnumber the sound party, and 
with majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go 
forward in defiance. 

Mr. Madison declared " that the divergence between us 
(Colonel Hamilton and myself) took place from his wishing to 
achmnistraiion, or rather to administer the Government (these 



KEMAKKS. 249' 

were Mr. Madison's very words) into what lie tliouglit it ought 
to be ; Avhile, on my part, I endeavored to make it conform to 
the Constitution, as understood by tlie Convention that pro- 
duced and recommended it, and particularly by the State Con- 
ventions that adopted it." 

Fedekal Government. — The word Federal is derived from 
the Latin word fa^dus, a league or compact. Ours is a 
Federal Government, as appears from the recommendation of 
Congress, 1787 : " Resolved, that in the opinion of Congress, 
it is expedient that, on the second Monday of May next, a Con- 
vention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the 
several States, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express 
purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting 
to Congress and the several Legislatures, such alterations and 
provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and 
confirmed by the States, render the Federcd Constitution ade- 
quate to the exigencies of the Government and the preservation 
of the Union. With this the commissions from the States to 
the delegates corresponded. So intent were the Conventions 
upon making a Federal and not a consolidated Government, 
that, at the motion of Mr. Ellsworth, the terra " national Gov- 
ernment " was by an unanimous vote struck out from the Con- 
stitution, and instead of it the " Government of the United 
States " was substituted. ^ It is in its origin and nature Federal, 
having been framed by the States as parties, and depending for 
its existence on the action of the States. 

The letter addressed to Congress by General Washington, 
President of the Convention, and agreed to by that body, by 
paragraphs, speaks of the " Federal Government of these States,^'' 
and not of a national Government. The word Federal indicates 
that the Constitution is a compact between the States. The 
term " national Government " is used in a popular sense. 

Accede. — Mr. Webster, in his speech, Feb. 16, 1833, said, 
in regard to the first resolution of Mr. Calhoun, which declares 
that the several States " acceded " to the Constitution or con- 
stitutional compact, " that the M'ord accede is not found in the 
Constitution itself, or in the ratification of it by any of the 



250 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVESSY. 

States. The natural converse of accession is secession, and 
therefore, when it is stated that the people of the States acceded 
to the Union, it may niore plausibly be argued that they may 
secede from it. If, in adojjting the Constitution, nothing was 
done but acccdinfj to a compact, nothing would seem to be 
necessary in order to break it u]), but to secede from the same 
compact. But the term is wJiolly out of jylaceP 

Tlie first resolution of Mr. Caluoun is in the following 
words : " Resolved^ that the people of the several States, com- 
jiosing these United States, are united as parties to a constitu- 
tional compact, to which the people of each State acceded as a 
separate and sovereign community, each binding itself by its own 
particular ratification ; and that the Union, of which the said com- 
pact is the bond, is a Union hetween the States ratifying the same." 

Is Mr. Webstek right in this declaration, that this term is 
wholly out of place ? Was Mr. Calhoun wrong in the use of 
the term ? 

Franklin says, vol. x., 351, " An eighth State has since 
acceded.''^ 

" The influence of each accession to the Constitution on the 
remaining States might be considerable." G. T. Cuetis, Ilis. 
Con., vol. ii., p. 529. 

The Governor of Rhode Island, 1789, says : " Our not 
having acceded to or adopted the new system of Government 
formed and adopted by our sister States, we doubt not, has 
given uneasiness to them." 

General "Washington, in his letter to Bushkod Washington, 
Xov. 10, 1787, says : " Let the opponents of the proposed 
Constitution in this State (Virginia) be asked, and it is a ques- 
tion they ought certainly to have asked themselves, What line 
of conduct they would advise it to adopt, if nine other States, 
of which 1 think there is no doubt, should accede to the Con- 
stitution. Would they recommend that it should stand single ? 
"\^''ill they connect it with Rhode Island ? " 

In a letter to James Madison, Dec. 7, 1787, he says : " If 
these, (South Carolina and Georgia,) with the States eastward 
and northward, should accede to the Federal Government, I 
think the citizens of this State will have no cause to bless the 
opposers of it here if they should carry their point." 



REMARKS. 251 

In a letter to James Madisox, Jan. 10, 1Y88, lie says : " But 
of all the arguments that may be used at the Convention which 
is to be held, the most prevailing one will be that nine States, 
at least, have acceded to it, that is, to the Constitution. 

In his letter to Count Luzekne, Feb. 7, 1780 : " It is also 
said that Georgia has acceded^ 

Thus the language " accede to the Constitution," " accede to 
the Union," was current and correct long ago, as applied to the 
States. The phrase " members of the Union," as applied to 
States that had acceded to the Constitution, or ratified the Consti- 
tution, was also in use. The States are members of the Union. 

Secede, secession, are the opposite of accede, accession. The 
use of the two latter words, in relation to the Federal Constitu- 
tion, and their supposed correlation to the two former, have 
already been noticed. 

t "The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the 
States, and in unitino; together thev have not forfeited their 
nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one 
and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw 
its name from tlie contract, it would be difficult to disprove its 
right of doing so." ; This opinion De Tocqijeville expresses in 
his work entitled " Democracy in America,^'' p. 419. He was 
as well qualified as any other foreigner to judge correctly con- 
cerning the nature of our institutions. 

<^" Any State may, at any time, constitutionally withdraw 
from the Union, and thus virtually dissolve it. It was not 
certainly created with tlie idea that the States, or several of 
them, would desire a separation. But whenever they chose to 
do it, they have no obstacle in the way." ' Thomas Colley 
Grattan's Civilised America, vol. i., js. 287. Mr. Macon, and 
Mr. Rawle, and Gouverneur Morris's opinions have been 
already quoted as agreeing with that of these distinguished 
foreigners. See pp. 68, 216, 218. 

The Northern members of Congress, on one occasion in the 
early part of General Washington's administration, " threatened 
secession and dissolution." See p, 37. Massachusetts and Con- 
necticut seemed at one time to believe in the right of secession, 
under certain circumstances. "We have the declaration of 
17 



252 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEESY. 

I JouN Qcrs'CY Adams, " that the contimiaiiee of the embargo, in 
1809, much longer would certainly be met by forcible resist- 
ance supported hy the Legislature, and probably by the ju- 
diciary of the State," (Massachusetts.) " That their object (the 
leaders of the party) was and had been for several years, a dis- 
solution of the Union," as he knew from " unequivocal evi- 
dence," that this design had been formed in the winter of 1803 
and 1804, immediately after and as a consequence of the 
acquisition of Louisiana." ' See p. 70. Massachusetts interposed 
her authority, pronounced the embargo unconstitutional. Mr. 
Jeffeeson wisely yielded, and the embargo was repealed. In 
thus avoiding a collision with the State of Massachusetts, and 
showing his respect for State rights, he set an example which 
General Jackson intentionally or unintentionally followed, in 
advising tlie modification of the tariff laws in 1833, by which 
he wisely avoided a collision with South Carolina. 

The Boston Centinel of !Nov. 9, 1814, in noticing the ap- 
pointment of delegates from Connecticut and Rhode Island, to 
the Hartford Convention, says : " they are the second and third 
pillars of the new Federal edilice." 

^JoHN QuiNCY Adams, in his oration delivered in 1830, on 
the jubilee of the Constitution, seems to countenance the right 
of secession under certain limitations : " To the people alone 
is thus reserved, as well the dissolving as the constituent power, 
and that power can be exercised by them only under the tie of 
conscience binding them to the retributive justice of heaven.^: 
With these qualifications we may admit the same rights vested 
in the 'pcojple of every State in the Union with reference to the 
General Government." The following from his Memoir, by 
JosiAu QuiNCY, p. 98, has a bearing on the same point : " There 
is now every appearance that the slave question will be carried 
by the superior ability of the slavery party. For this much 
is certain, that if institutions are to be judged by their results, 
in the composition of the councils of the Union, the slaveholders 
are much more ably represented than the simple freemen. 
With the exception of Rufus King, there is not one in either 
House of Congress, a member of the free States, able to cope 
in powers of the mind with William Pinkney and James 
Baeboue. In the House of Eepresentatives they have no one 



REMAKES. 253 

to contend on equal terms with John Randolph or Clay. An- 
other misfortune to the free party is, that some of their ablest 
men are either on this question with their adversaries, or luke- 
warm in the cause. Tlie slave men have indeed a deeper im- 
mediate stake in the issue than the partisans of freedom. Tlieir 
passions and interests are more profoundly agitated, and they 
have stronger impulses to active energy than their antagonists, 
whose only individual interest in the case exists from its bear- 
ing on the balance of political power between the Xorth and 
the South." 

" The impression produced on my mind by the progress of 
this discussion (the Missouri) is, that the bargain between free- 
dom and slavery, contained in the Constitution of the United 
States, is morally and politically vicious ; inconsistent with the 
principles on which alone our revolution can be justified, cruel 
and oppressive, by riveting the chains of slavery, by pledging 
the faith of freedom to maintain and perpetuate the tyranny of 
the master ; and grossly unecpial and impolitic, by admitting 
that slaves are at once enemies to be kept in subjection, prop- 
erty to be secured and returned to tlieir owners, and persons 
not be represented themselves, but for whom their masters 
are privileged with many a double share of representation. 

" I have favored this Missouri Compromise, believing it to be 
all that could be effected under the present Constitution, and 
from extreme unwillingness to put the Union at hazard. But 
perhaps it would have been a wiser and a bolder cause to liave 
persisted in the restriction on Missouri, until it should have 
terminated in a Convention of the States to revise and amend 
the Constitution. This would have produced a new Union of 
thirteen or fourteen States^ unjpolluted with slavery^ with a 
great and glorious object, that of rallying to their standard the 
other States, by the universal emancipation of their slaves. If 
the Union must be dissolved, slavery is precisely the question 
upon which it ought to break." 

Coercion.— The founders of the Federal Government did 
not rely for its preservation, mainly upon physical force, as if 
it were a military despotism, but upon mutual confidence and 
" conciliated interests." We have no evidence that it Avas the 



254: THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEKSY. 

intention of the Convention that formed the Constitution, or of 
the States that were parties to the compact, to clothe the Gov- 
ernment with power to use military coercion against a State 
that had placed itself on its reserved rights. If there was such 
an intention, where is it recorded ? What they did rely upon 
was legal coercion^ acting through the forms of law upon indi- 
viduals. Mr. CuKTis, in his excellent history of the Constitution, 
vol. ii., pp. G2, 63, says : " One of the leading objects in forming 
the Constitution, was to obtain for the United States the means 
of coercion, without a resort to force against the people of the 
States collectively." " The introduction, therefore, of the judi- 
cial department into the new plan of Government, of itself 
evinces an intention to clothe that Government with powers that 
could be executed jpeacefully^ and without the necessity of putting 
down the organized opposition of subordinate communities." 

"Washington, in a letter addressed to Alexandek Hamilton, 
Aug. 26, 1792, having spoken of " mutual forbearance and 
yielding on all sides," adds, " witliout these, I do not see how 
the reins of Government are to be managed, or how the Union 
of the States can much longer be preserved." 

With respect to the coercion of a State, I have found no 
evidence that Washington differed from Madison and Bu- 
chanan, with respect to the constitutional power to coerce a 
State. In the case of the whiskey insurrection, he acted in 
harmony with the executive authority of the State then repre- 
sented by Governor Mifflin, and also in harmony with the 
views of Judge Willson, of Pennsylvania, an associate Justice 
of the Supreme Court of the United States. lie was careful 
to keep the military in subordination to the civil authority. 

In the farewell address of General Jackson, March 3, 1837, 
is the following : " But the Constitution cannot be maintained, 
nor the Union preserved in opposition to j^ublic feeling by the 
mere exertion of coercive powers of the Government. The foun- 
dations must be laid in the affections of the pcojyle, in the 
security it gives to life, liberty, and property in every quarter 
of the country ; and in the fraternal attachments which the 
citizens of the several States bear to one another, as members 
of one political family, matenally contributing to promote the 
happiness of each other." 



SEMARKS. 255 

It appears evident' from tlie clel)ates in the United States 
Senate, Feb. 8, 1831, and from other facts, that General Jack- 
son endorsed the opinions of Mr. Hayne, on the subject of State 
rights, and not those of Mr. AVebster. The tone and langna^e 
of Mr. Webster's speeches, on that "\v ell-known occasion, were 
extremely well adapted to popular effect, and were greatly and 
deservedly admired even by many who felt that he leaned towards 
a construction of the Constitution which would make the Gen- 
eral Government consolidated rather than Federal. 

What the oj)inions of General Jackson were, in respect to 
nullification, in the case of South Carolina are well known from 
his proclamation, written by Edward Livengston", then Secre- 
tary of State. On that occasion he was in favor of carrying 
the olive branch in one hand and the swoi-d in the other. 
South Carolina was in the Union, and, of course, siibject to the 
laws of the Union. These laws General Jackson was deter- 
mined to execute, but he and other wise men on that occasion, 
pursued a conciliatory course that rendered the forcible execution 
of the laws unnecessary. 

" If it be supposed that, among the States which are united 
by the Federal tie, there are some which exclusively enjoy the 
principal advantages of Union, or whose prosperity depends on 
the duration of that Union, it is unquestionable that they will 
always be ready to support the Central Government in enforcing 
the obedience of others. But the Government would then be 
exciting a force not derived from itself, but from a principle 
contrary to its nature. States form confederations in order to 
derive equal advantages from their union ; and in the case just 
alluded to, the Federal Government -would derive its power 
from the unequal distribution of those benefits among the 
States. 

" If one (or more) of the Confederate States have acquired 
a preponderance sufliciently great to enable it to take exclusive 
possession of the central authority, it will consider the other 
States as subject provinces, and it will cause its own supremacy 
to be respected under the borrowed name of the Sovereignty of 
the Union. Great things may then be done in tlie name of the 
Federal Government, but in reality that Government will have 
ceased to exist. In both of these cases, the power which acts 



256 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 

in tlie name of the Confederation becomes stronger, the more 
it abandons the natural state and the acknowledged principles 
of Confederation." — De Tocquevtlle, p. 419. 

" I understand the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Hale, 
to proclaim not the gospel of peace between brethren, but a cir- 
cumspect waiting to ascertain w^hether Mr. Buchanan would or 
would not send a Federal army to coerce South Carolina. I 
trust, sir, if Mr. Buchanan should do so high-handed and fatal 
an act of violence as that, his term is not too brief, as President 
of the United States, for him to be arraigned at our bar by an 
impeachment. What would South Carolina be worth to herself 
or to us if she were dragged captive in chains ? I wish no State 
of this Union subjugated by her sisters. If she cannot be re- 
tained by the bonds of affection, by acts of kindness, why then, 
in God's name, horrible as I esteem such an alternative — let 
her depart in sorrowful silence." — Senator Puon, Dec. 10, 
18G0. 

Mr. Clay, in deprecating a civil war, used the following lan- 
guage : '' But if they were to conquer, whom would they con- 
quer ? A foreign foe, one who had insulted our flag, invaded 
our shores, and laid our country w^aste ? Ko, sir, no. It would 
be a conquest loithout laurels, without glory, a self-suicidal con- 
quest, a conquest of brothers over brothers, obtained by one over 
another portion of the descendants of common ancestors, who, 
nobly pledging ' their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred 
honor,' had fought and bled side by side in many a hard battle 
on land and ocean, severed our country from the British crown, 
and established our national independence." 

It was provided in the Constitution that legal coercion should 
be exerted against inclividuals who violate the laws made in 
pursuance of the Constitution. This, it was supposed, would su- 
persede the necessity of making any provision for the coercion 
of a State by military force. 

The Constitution recognizes treason agaijist a State as a 
crime, and requires a traitor who has fled into another State to 
be delivered up. It thus acknowledges the Sovereignty of the 
States : Treason is a crime against sovereignty. " The Consti- 
tution does not," in the language of Chief-Justice Ellsworth, 
'' attempt to coerce sovereign bodies." Such an attempt is 



KEMAKKS. 257 

equivalent to an act of -vrar of a government of delegated sov- 
ereignty^ against a government of original and inherent sov- 
ereignty. 

CoxciLiATioN AND CoMPKOinsE. — In 1794, when combina- 
tions were formed in Pennsylvania to defeat the execution of the 
laws laying duties upon spirits distilled within the United 
States, commissioners were appointed by the Federal Govern- 
ment to persuade the actors to return to their duty. Thus 
"WAsmNGTON pursued a conciliatory course, even in case of an 
insurrection which received no encouragement from a State, in 
its organized capacity. 

" Now, for one, I am not ready yet to take the responsibility 
of absolutely closing the door of reconciliation. I cannot per- 
suade myself to forget the warnings that have descended to us 
from many of the wisest and best statesmen of all time against 
this rigid and haughty mode of treating great discontents. I 
cannot overlook the fact that, in the days of our fathers, the im- 
perious spirit of Chatham did not feel itself as sacrificing any 
of his proud dignity by proposing to listen to their grievances, 
and even to concede every reasonable demand, long after they 
had placed themselves in armed resistance to all the power of 
Great Britain. Had George the Third listened to his words of 
wisdom, he might have saved the brightest jewel of his crown. 
He took the opposite course. He denied the existence of griev- 
ances. He rejected the olive branch. History records its ver- 
dict in favor of Chatham and against the king." — C. F. Adams, 
of Massachusetts, in the House of Kepresentatives, Jan. 31, 
1861. 

This language of conciliation was in harmony with the feel- 
ings of a great portion of the people in the States both Xorth 
and South, at that time. 

On the other hand, Mr. Egerton, of Ohio, Jan. 31, 1S61, 
said : 

1. " I will not compromise, because I have no ftiith tliat any 
compromise we can make would stand any longer than it minis- 
tered to slavery. 

2. " I will not compromise, because I would not further 
strengthen slavery. 



268 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVERST. 

3. " I will not compromise, finally, because slavery is a sin, 
an ontrage against humanity, and an insult to God." 

This language was probably in harmony with the feelings 
of a large portion of people in some of the Northern States. 

" This is a mighty empire. Its existence spreads its influ- 
ence through the civilized world. Its overthrow will be the 
greatest shock that civilization and free governments have ever 
received ; more extensive in its consequences, more fatal to 
mankind, than the French Revolution, with all its blood, and 
with all its war and violence. And for what ? Upon questions 
concerning this line of division between slavery and freedom ? 
Why, Mr. President, suppose this day all the Southern States 
being refused their right, being refused this partition, being de- 
nied this privilege, were to separate from the Northern States, 
were to do it peaceably, and then were to come to you and say : 
* Let there be no war between us ; let us divide fairly this terri- 
tory of the United States ; ' could the Northern section of the 
country refuse so just a demand ? what would you then give them ? 
what would be the fair proportion ? K you allowed them their 
fair relative proportion, would you not give them as much as is 
now proposed to be assigned on the Southern side of that line, 
and would they not be at liberty to carry their slaves there if 
they pleased ? "—Mr. Ckittenden, Dec. 28, 1860. 

Mr. EvEEETT, May 29, 1860, made the following declaration : 
" Our political controversies have substantially assumed an 
almost purely sectional character — that of a fearful struggle 
between the North and the South. It would not be difficult to 
show at length the perilous nature and tendency of this strug- 
gle, but I can only say, on this occasion, that, in my opinion, it 
cannot much longer be kept up without rending the Union. 
* * * A spirit of patriotic moderation must be called into 
activity throughout the Union, or it will assuredly be broken 
up." 

Senator Brown, of Mississippi, Dec. 12, 1860, said : "If the 
same spirit could prevail which now actuated the Senator who 
has just spoken, (Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut,) a different state 
of things might prevail in twenty days." 

President Buchanan used the following language on this 
subject: "The proposition to compromise by letting the North 



EEMAEKS. 259 

have the exclusive control of the territory above a certain line, 
and giving Southern institutions protection below that line, 
ought to receive universal approbation. In itself, it may not be 
entirely satisfactory, but when the alternative is between a rea- 
sonable concession on both sides, and the destruction of the 
Union, it is an imputation on the patriotism of Congress to as- 
sert that its members will hesitate for a moment." 

Listen, also, to the following patriotic sentiments from Sen- 
ator Sewaed : " Beyond a doubt. Union is vitally important to 
the Republican citizens of the United States; but it is just as 
important to the whole people. Republicanism and Union are 
not convertible terms. Republicanism is subordinate to Union 
as every thing else is ; Republicanism, Democracy, every other 
political name and thing — all are subordinate, and they ought 
to disappear in the presence of the great question of Union. So 
far as I am concerned, it shall be so." 

The plan of compromise proposed by Mr. Ckittenden, Jan. 
12, 1861 — and which was regarded with favor by a large portion 
of the Peace Congress assembled at Washington, and which was 
acceptable generally to the Border States — was not satisfactory 
to the extremists either I^orth or South. The majority of the 
Senate was not in favor of it. Whether the greater share of the 
blame of the failure of this attempt at compromise was due to 
the North or to the South, it is not necessary here to inquire. 
The terrible consequences of the failure soon became alarmingly 
evident. " Blood-letting " was substituted for the counsels of 
peace and conciliation. 

Construction of the Constitution. — " It is evident that a 
Confederation so vast and so varied, both in numbers and in 
territorial extent, in habits and interests, could only be kept in 
national cohesion by the strictest fidelity to the principles of the 
Constitution, as understood by those wdio have adhered to the 
most restricted constructions of the powers given by the people 
and the States. Interpreted and applied according to those 
principles, the great compact adapts itself with healthy ease and 
freedom to an unlimited extension of that benign system of 
federative self-government, of which it is our glorious, and, I 
trust, immortal charter. Let us then, with redoubled vigilance. 



260 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEKSY 

be on our guard against yielding to the temptation to the exer- 
cise of doubtful powers, even under the pressure of the motives 
of conceded temporary advantage and apparent temporary ex- 
pediency. 

" The minimum of Federal Government, compatible with 
the maintenance of national unity and efficient action in our 
relation with the rest of the world, should afford the rule and 
measure of construction of our powers under the general clauses 
of the Constitution. A spirit of strict deference to the sovereign 
rights and dignity of every State, rather than a disposition to 
subordinate the States into a provincial relation to the central 
authority, should characterize all our exercise of the respective 
powers temporarily vested in us as a sacred trust from the gener- 
ous confidence of our constituents." — Feanklln" Pierce. First 
Annual Message. 

Mr. Madison, in his letter to Mr. Webster, March 15, 1833, 
says : " The Constitution of the United States being established 
by a competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the 
several States who were parties to it, it remains only to in- 
quire what that Constitution is." 

The evidence in this inquiry is largely philological. The 
common rules for interpreting language must .be applied to the 
Constitution in order to learn what it is. The meaning attrib- 
uted to the several clauses by the Convention that formed it, 
and the several State Conventions which adopted it, may be 
safely considered as the true meaning. 

Practically, the true course to be pursued by the Federal 
Government in the construction of the Constitution, is never to 

ATTEMPT TO EXERCISE ANY DOUBTFUL POWERS. TllC benefit of a 

doubt should always accrue to the residuary powers reserved to 
the States, and never to the delegated powers intrusted by the 
Constitution to the Federal Government. 

The burden of proof rests on the Federal Government. In 
the last resort the parties to the constitutional compact nmst be 
the judges. See p. 268. 

GOUVERNEUR MoRRIS TO TiMOTHY PiCKERING, DeC. 22, 181-4. 

— " But, after all, what does it signify that men should have 
a written Constitution, containing unequivocal provisions and 



KEMAEKS. 2G1 

limitations. The legislative lion will not be entangled in the 
meshes of a logical net. The Legislature will always make the 
power which it wishes to exercise, miles.? it be so organized as 
to contain, in itself, the sufficient check. Attempts to restrain 
it from outrage by other means will only render it the more 
outrageous. The idea of binding Legislatures by oaths is pue- 
rile. Having sworn to exercise the powers granted accord- 
ing to their true intent and meaning, they will, when they de- 
sire, go further and avoid the shame, if not the guilt of per- 
jury, by showing the true intent to be, according to their com- 
prehension, that which suits their purpose." 

" There is no difference between a Government having all 
power and a Government having the right to take Avhat power 
it pleases." — J. C. Calhoujst. 

In 1802, Alexander Hamilton called the Constitution the 
" frail and worthless fabric," and spoke of it as " a temporary 
bond." He had endeavored to infuse energy and strengtli into 
it by a broad or loose construction of its powers, but the States 
had decided against such a construction ; hence the epithets 
which he applied to it. 

Mr. Madison says of General Washington, " that he signed 
Jay's treaty, but he did not at all like it. He also signed the 
bank, but he was very near not doing so ; if he had refused, it 
would, in my opinion, have produced a crisis." 

" I am satisfied that had it been his veto, there would have 
been an effort to nullify it ; they would have arrayed them- 
selves in a hostile attitude." — Mr. Trist, 1S27. 

A dominant party in the Government is often tempted to 
enlarge the Federal powers at the expense of State rights ; and 
when the opposing party becomes dominant, it, in turn, is 
tempted to follow bad precedents, and thus sanction what it 
had asserted to be a violation of the Constitution. Thus Mr. 
Madison, with his party, opposed, with great ability, the charter 
of the first bank of the United States. But when his own party 
came into power, and passed a vote to charter the second bank 
of the United States, he, in opposition to his own declared con- 
stitutional views on the subject, gave his signature to the 
bill. 

An unconstitutional act in a given case " will be recorded as 



263 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOYEItSY. 

a precedent, and many an error, by the same example, will rush 
into the State." 

Kevolution. — A revolution does not necessarily imply war 
or the shedding of blood, as it is supposed by many to do. 
What is the cause of this erroneous supposition ? Why, in the 
case of the American Revolution there was war and the shed- 
ding of blood. In the case of the French Revolution there was 
war and the shedding of blood, and so the conclusion is drawn 
that revolution necessarily implies war and the shedding of 
blood. 

" I acknowledge, to the fullest extent, the right of revolu- 
tion, if you call it a right, and of the destruction of the Govern- 
ment under which we live, if we are discontented with it, and 
on its ruins to erect another more in accordance with our wishes ; 
but they that undertake it, undertake it with this hazard : if 
they are successful, then all is right, and they are heroes ; if they 
are defeated, they are rebels." — Senator Wade, of Ohio, Dec. 
17, 1850. 

" We are confusing language very much. Men speak of 
revolution, and when they sj^eak of revolution they mean blood. 
Our fathers meant nothing of the sort. When they spoke of 
revolution, they spoke of an inalienable i*ight." If our fathers 
had the " inalienable right " to change their " systems of Gov- 
ernment," where was the right of Great Britain in the premises 
to wage war against the States ? 

In Mr. Force's published volumes is a pamphlet, the title 
page of which is as follows : " An account of the late Revolu- 
tion in New England, together with the declaration of the gen- 
tlemen, merchants, and inhabitants of Boston and the country 
adjacent, April, 18, 1GS9 ; written by Nathaniel Byefield, a 
mercliant of Boston, in New England, to his friends in Lon- 
don." Concerning this revolution, it is said " through the good- 
ness of God there has heen no Ijlood shed.''^ In this revolution 
from the Government of James to that of William, Sir Edmond 
Andross, Kt., was ordered to " surrender and deliver up the 
Government and fortifications," and he consented without re- 
sistance. The great English revolution of 1689, when James 
TI. was dethroned, and William and Mary reigned in his stead. 



KEMAUKS. 263 

■was not attended by war or much, violence ; and yet, how be- 
neficent it proved ! Revolution is not necessarily connected 
with M'ar and bloodshed. 

SovEKEiGNTY OR SuPEEME PowEK. — In a dcspotism, the mon- 
arch is sovereign. In Great Britain, the sovereignty, or supreme 
power, is lodged with the Ivings, Lords, and Commons. In the 
United States, it rests with the people of the several States. 

In the Continental Congress, 177-i, Patrick Henry, speak- 
ing for Virginia, thought it would be unjust " for a little colony 
to weigh as much in the councils of America as a great one." 
Mr. SuLLrv'AJsr, of l^ew Hampshire, responded that " a little 
colony had its all at stake as much as a great one," thus an- 
nouncing in the outset the great doctrine of the equality of 
States, as sovereign and independent communities. Accord- 
ingly, it was resolved that " each colony shall have one vote." 

• In June 27, 1776, the Continental Congress declared " that 
all persons owing allegiance to any of the United Colonies, who 
shall bring war against any of the citizens, are guilty of trea- 
son " against the colony to which they owe allegiance, thus re- 
cognizing the sovereignty of each colony. 

In the Constitution, of Massachusetts, formed 1780, is the fol- 
lowing form : " I, A B, do truly and sincerely acknowledge, 
profess, testify, and declare, that the Commonwealth of Massa- 
chusetts is, and of right ought to be, a free, sovei^eign^ and inde- 
pendent State ; and I do swear that I will bear true allegiance to 
the Commonwealth, and that I will defend the same against trai- 
torous conspiracies." 

Tlie States are sovereign in all that relates to the powers re- 
served to themselves, and which they did not delegate to the 
Federal Government in creating it. In creating the Federal 
Government, the States delegated a portion of their individual 
sovereignty to it, to be employed for the common benefit. The 
Federal Government was endowed, by the States acting in con- 
ventions, with the powers of exercising sovereignty in respect 
to war, taxation, and treaties with foreign nations, and other 
enumerated subjects. In the language of Mr. Madisox, the enu- 
merated powers vested in the Government of the United States 
are of as high and sovereign a character as any of the powers 
reserved to the State Governments. 



261 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEKSY. 

" JSTor is the Government of tlie United States created by 
the Constitution, less a Government, in the strict sense of the 
term, within the scope of its j)Owers, than the Governments cre- 
ated by the Constitutions of the States are -svithiu their several 
spheres." 

" My own general idea was that the States should severally 
preserve their sovereignty^ and that the exercise of the Federal 
sovereignty should be divided among these several bodies, 
legislative, executive, and judiciary, as the State sovereignties 
are, and that some peaceable means should be contrived for the 
Federal head to force compliance on the part of the States." 
Tin's refers to legal coercion, to the exclusion of war. 

The people of each State, at the time they adopted the Fed- 
eral Constitution, delegated to the Federal Government a por- 
tion of the sovereignty which was inherent in the State, but 
they reserved to it all that was not delegated. They delegated 
to the Federal Government the power to act on individuals, but 
not to act against the State by military coercion. To act against 
a State in this way, would be to make war against a sovereign 
power, to which the people of the State, as individuals, owe 
allegiance as well as obedience, and against which they may 
commit treason by withholding allegiance and obedience, j 

AVhenever a question arises in regard to the line of ^.i vision 
between the delegated sovereignty of the Federal Government 
and the original sovereignty of the States, it was intended Jiftt 
the Federal Court shall, by its decision, settle that ^question in 
all those cases which can be brought before it for adjudication, 
and that the Executive'shall carry out those decisions in their 
applications to individuals. 

" This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which 
shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or 
which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, 
shall be the superior law of the land ; and the Judges in every 
State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or 
laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." This ap- 
plies only to distinct and not to doubtful powers. 

But if a State should place itself on its reserved powers, and 
should deny the constitutionality of a Federal act, whether of 
the legislative, or executive, or the judicial branch of the 



KE:^LiEKS. 2G5 

Government, then the true mode of settling the same question 
is to summon a Convention of the States to declare that act 
constitutional or otherwise, and thus prevent a dangerous colli- 
sion between the delegated sovereignty of the Federal Govern- 
ment and the residuary sovereignty of the States. War is a 
cojitest between sovo'eignties. 

" The Gordian knot of the Constitution seems to be in the 
problem of collision between the Federal and State powers, 
especially as eventually to be exercised by their respective tri- 
bunals. If the knot cannot be untied by the text of the Consti- 
tution, it ought not certainly to be cut by any political Alexan- 
der."— Mr. Madison, Jan. 29, 1S21. 

Allegiance. — On the 2d of July, ITTG, the Continental 
Congress passed the following resolution : 

liesolved, That the United Colonies are, and of right ought 
to be, free and independent States ; that they are absolved from 
all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political con- 
nection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and 
ought to be, totally dissolved." 

On the passage of this resolution, a special committee was 
appointed to prepare a preamble declaring the causes which 
led to its adoption, to accompany its promulgation to the world. 
On the Fourth of July, this Declaration of Independence received 
the unanimous sanction of the delegates from each State, by the 
signature of their names. 

In 1Y7T, the following oath of " abjuration and allegiance" 
was adopted by the State of South Carolina : " I, A B, do ac- 
knowledge that the State of South Carolina is, and of right 
ought to be, a free, and independent, and sovereign State, and 
that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George 
the Third, King of Great Britain ; * * * and I do further 
swear that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the said 
State, and to the utmost of my power will support, maintain, 
and defend the freedom and independence thereof." 

The present Constitution of South Carolina contains the fol- 
lowing : " I solemnly swear (or afhrm) that I will l)e faithful, 
and true allegiance bear to the State of South Carolina, so long 
as I continue a citizen thereof." 



266 THE SECTIOX^VL COXTROVERST. 

In the Constitution of Massaclnisetts, formed in 1780, is the 
following form : " I, A B, do testify and sincerely acknowledge, 
profess, testify, and declare, that the Commonwealth of Massa- 
cliusetts is, and of right ought to he, a free, sovereign^ and inde- 
l)endent State, and I do swear I will hear true allegiance to the 
Commonwx\alth, and that I will defend the same against all trai- 
torous conspiracies." 

Is allegiance due hoth to the State sovereignty and to the 
Federal sovereignty, also, in the scope of its delegated powers ? 
Can sovereignty, or at least its exercise, be divided between the 
State Government and the General Government ? May not a 
corresponding division be made of allegiance ? Why not ? 

There are those who say that allegiance cannot be divided. 
Tliey say that, under the Constitution of the United States, 
every citizen owes allegiance to the State, and obedience to the 
Federal Government. 

4. JSI'orthern Yieios of Slave Property. — In March, 1798, 
when tlie bill for the erection of a Government in Mississippi 
Territory was before Congress, it was moved that the same 
should be in all respects similar to that established in the ISTorth- 
western Territory, except that " slavery should not be forbidden." 
Mr. Thatcher, of Massachusetts, moved to strike out the except- 
ing clause, thus excluding slavery from the Territory. 

Mr. Otis, of Massachusetts, " hoped his colleague would not 
withdraw his motion ; and the reason why he wished this was, 
that an opportunity might be given to gentlemen loho came from 
the same part of the Union with him to manifest that it is not 
their disposition to interfere with the Southern States as to 
that species of property in question. He thought it was not the 
business of those who had nothing to do with that kind of prop- 
erty to interfere with that right. If the amendment prevailed, 
it would declare that no slavery should exist in the ]^atches 
country. Tliis would not only be a sentence of banishment, 
but of war." 

The amendment did not prevail, and slavery was permitted 
in the Territory. 

Chief-Justice Shaw, of Massachusetts, 1836, in a legal deci- 
sion, said : " Slavery, to a certain extent, seems to have crept 



KEMARKS. 267 

into the colonial government, not probably by force of law for 
none such is found to exist ; but either, it is presumed, from that 
universal custom pervading through the colonies, in the West 
Indies, and on the continent of America, and which M-as fos- 
tered and encouraged by the commercial policy of the times. 
That it was so established is shown by this : that by several 
provincial acts, passed at various times in the early part of the 
lust century, slavery was recognized as an existing fact, and va- 
l*ious regulations were prescribed in reference to it." 

Judge BissEL, of Conn., has said, 1S37, " that the principle 
was recognized and acted upon that one man might have prop- 
erty in another, might command his services for life without 
compensation, and dispose of him as he would of any other 
chattel." 

Judge Baldwin, of the United States Court, in the case of 
Johnson versics Tompkins, declares that " the foundations of this 
(the Federal) Government are laid, and rest on the rights of 
^property in slaves, and the lohole fcd)ric mustfcdl hy disturhinrj 
the corner-stone.''' 

Alexaxdek IIamiltox remarks that " it is the unfortunate 
situation of the Southern States to have a great part of tluir 
population, as well as property, in blacks." lie, like other 
leading statesmen contemporaneous with him, had no difficulty 
in considering slaves as property. 

7. Personal Liberty Bills. — " If the j^roperty of an Ameri- 
can citizen is taken by a foreign nation, and, upon a demand for 
redress, it is not given up, or paid for, war follows ; and if instead 
the foreign Government legislates to protect the wrongdoer, war 
is inevitable." '"■ It would be the case if the same thing took 
place between any foreign States. But M'e (the Southern States) 
are in a vastly worse condition than would be the people of any 
foreign State, because those States of the Union that legislate 
to prevent the recapture of our property are doing it with per- 
fect safely. The proceedings of the old Barbary powers, when 
they nsed to send out cruisers and captm*e property on the high 
seas, were brave and honorable enterprises compared with 
these proceedings, because they run the risk of having their 

cities bombarded." — Senator Clixgman, Dec. 4, ISGO. 
18 



268 THE siicTioNAL Cv>NTi:sr. 

This statement of the ease, evidently a fair one, places in a 
srrong light the injustice of certain personal liberty bills, vio- 
lating, as they do, the principles of the Constitution, and having 
the effect to defeat one of its provisions. Any State which has 
passed a personal liberty bill designed to defeat a plain provi- 
sion of the Constitution for the return of fugitive slaves, cannot 
consistently coni})lain of the States injured by those bills, if they 
refuse to act with tlicm in the Confederacy. AVithout the in- 
troduction of the article for the return of fugitive slaves, we 
know that the Constitution would not have been adopted, and 
if States, by their legislation, make that article null and void, 
they release the otlier States which hold slaves from their obli- 
gation to continue in the Confederacy. " A compact broken on 
one side is broken on all sides." 

8. Who are to judge, in the last resort, in respect to the 
constitutionality of the acts of the Federal Government ? Evi- 
dently the same organized bodies that origlncdly adopted the 
Constitution, and that now have 'poioer to amend the Constitu- 
tion. " Nine," or three-quarters of the States that sent delegates 
to the Convention, had power to adopt the Constitution and 
make it binding hetween the States ; and three-quarters of the 
States now acting by their Legislatures or their Conventions, 
have power to amend the Constitution. They can declare what 
the meaning of the Constitution is in doubtful cases. 

In common cases, Avhicli are ca])able of assuming, and actu- 
ally assuming, the character of a suit, the Supreme Court of the 
United States is the interpreter. 

In cases not capable of assuming the character of a suit at 
law or in equity. Congress, when called to act, must interpret 
the Constitution in such a way as never to exercise any doubtful 
powers. 

"When the Supreme Court or Congress, or, more comprehen- 
sively, when the General Government exercnses doubtful power 
or powers that any of the States claim to be not delegated, but 
reserved, then the States, acting in Convention or by their Legis- 
latures, can determine whether the power in question is delegated 
or reserved. The States are to judge in the last resort of the 
constitutionality of the acts of the Federal Government. The 
Constitution gives to them this authority, in giving them power 



KK-AIAIiKS. 269 

to amend the Federal Constitution. If three-fourths of the 
States refuse to act by their Legislatures or by Convention, in 
tlie manner prescribed by tlie Constitution, then the aggrieved 
States have to choose between bearing the evil complained of, 
or vindicating the right of revolution ; just as the colonies did 
when they made the Declaration of Independence, and sus- 
tained it by a seven years' war against the unreasonable de- 
mands of the mother country. And as the aggrieved States 
have in sucli a case the right to determine what it is their duty 
to do ; so in like manner the other States, acting through the 
forms of the Federal Government, have also the right to deter- 
mine what it is their duty to do in their relations to the ag- 
grieved States. 



